Derailed From Gabby's Tea Party In CA Bestiality & More!

[glockmail]

Californication is fill of sodomites and faggots.

[HogTrash]

Well, golly gee, maybe that's because it is the most liberal state in the country....Absolutely anything goes there. It's a cess pool....If one wants to wallow in deviant behavior one should move to Calif.No doubt, California is a Safe Haven for all manner of perversion and sick twisted minds.

I don't think Gabby will mind if I just stay out here with the decent moral respectable dummies.

Although I am curious how the smart people explain to their children how two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act. :confused:

[glockmail]

And Califorinica is setting up a legal case to make queer marriage legal in all 50 states, headed up by none other that Ted Olson.


Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and a prominent conservative; and David Boies, the Democratic trial lawyer who was his opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot#ixzz0dlsc9h90

[Binky]

No doubt, California is a Safe Haven for all manner of perversion and sick twisted minds.

I don't think Gabby will mind if I just stay out here with the decent moral respectable dummies.

Although I am curious how the smart people explain to their children how two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act. :confused:

Why did you find it necessary to bring on that image? UGH! Thanks for that one......:eek:

[gabosaurus]

Although I am curious how the smart people explain to their children how two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act. :confused:

If they don't know, you can explain it to them. I am sure you have the magazines and manuals.

[HogTrash]

If they don't know, you can explain it to them. I am sure you have the magazines and manuals.Being non-liberal, it is unnecessary to legitimize homosexuality or any other sick perversions to my children.

[82Marine89]

No doubt, California is a Safe Haven for all manner of perversion and sick twisted minds.

I don't think Gabby will mind if I just stay out here with the decent moral respectable dummies.

Although I am curious how the smart people explain to their children how two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act. :confused:

Got to take issue with you on a few things.

California is not a safe haven. New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont lead the way.

As for being moral or immoral, who is to decide that? Priests or judges? Regardless of this being a Christian Nation, it is still ruled by law. If it is legal, is it moral or immoral?

Who decides what is normal? For heterosexuals it is a man and a woman, but what if they partake in an orgy or menage a trois? Does that make them gay since people of the same sex are naked and partaking in the same act as them? To homosexuals a man and man or a woman and woman is normal. To me, normal is a state of mind made up by insecure people so they would not have to be different. Seriously, does what other people do in their bedroom effect you any any way?

[DragonStryk72]

Got to take issue with you on a few things.

California is not a safe haven. New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont lead the way.

As for being moral or immoral, who is to decide that? Priests or judges? Regardless of this being a Christian Nation, it is still ruled by law. If it is legal, is it moral or immoral?

Who decides what is normal? For heterosexuals it is a man and a woman, but what if they partake in an orgy or menage a trois? Does that make them gay since people of the same sex are naked and partaking in the same act as them? To homosexuals a man and man or a woman and woman is normal. To me, normal is a state of mind made up by insecure people so they would not have to be different. Seriously, does what other people do in their bedroom effect you any any way?

My view is similar, being that as long as they aren't asking me to participate (well, okay, two women I'd go with again, it was fun the last time.), I don't really care what they're doing.

[HogTrash]

Got to take issue with you on a few things.

California is not a safe haven. New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont lead the way.

As for being moral or immoral, who is to decide that? Priests or judges? Regardless of this being a Christian Nation, it is still ruled by law. If it is legal, is it moral or immoral?I decide if it's immoral and I decide if I don't want schools or anyone else teaching my children that two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act.


Who decides what is normal? For heterosexuals it is a man and a woman, but what if they partake in an orgy or menage a trois? Does that make them gay since people of the same sex are naked and partaking in the same act as them? To homosexuals a man and man or a woman and woman is normal. To me, normal is a state of mind made up by insecure people so they would not have to be different.I have decided to stick with the old school of thought before political correctness, that says homosexuality is a sick disgusting perversion.

I am also a jarhead and served in Viet Nam...I'm big mean old and ugly and anything but "insecure" junior.

You have had way too much liberal crap crammed down your throat and PC bullshit shoved up your ass.


Seriously, does what other people do in their bedroom effect you any any way?I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes or in the back allies and gutters but don't flaunt it in me and my families faces and try to legitimize your sick perversions.

[82Marine89]

I don't think you got the METAL to be a Marine...

Nice. Attack my being a Marine. Now that's something that has never happened before. Nice thing about that is I made it through bootcamp and earned the title of United States Marine. I don't need to prove shit to you or anyone else.


I decide if it's immoral and I decide if I don't want schools or anyone else teaching my children that two men butt-humping each other is a perfectly normal sex act.

Now you have changed it from the masses to individual thought. That's fine and a great way of ducking the question because I can't question your personal views so if you want to say something is immoral then go ahead, it is your right to do so. Good thing is your opinion doesn't carry much weight in society.


I have decided to stick with the old school of thought before political correctness, that says homosexuality is a sick disgusting perversion.

I never said homosexuality was right or wrong and political correctness has nothing to do with it. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever been in a three way with two men and a woman or two women and a man? Ever take part in an orgy or were you an alter boy growing up?


I am also a jarhead and served in Viet Nam...I'm big mean old and ugly and anything but "insecure" junior.

You have had way too much liberal crap crammed down your throat and PC bullshit shoved up your ass.

I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes or in the back allies and gutters but don't flaunt it in me and my families faces and try to legitimize your sick perversions.

If you are also a jarhead, then Semper Fi. If you served in Vietnam thanks for that. Having seen your photo I can agree that you are ugly. Never said you were insecure, that was only my opinion of normal. As for the 'Junior' comment I guess I might have gotten under your skin.

Finally, if you don't care what they do in their house they why do you care if they hold hands in public? Don't you and your wife hold hands in public? Are you not flaunting your heterosexuality? See, I thought we served so that those who didn't or were not able to would also be safe and live as they wish. We served so they could be free to do what they want. I don't care if it is gay sex, group sex, praying to the devil, or wearing white sheets. I don't have to agree with it, but as long as it is legal they have the right to do it.
If you don't like it get your ass off this board and run for office. Effect change instead of bitching about it.

[DragonStryk72]

Can't rep you again yet, Marine. As is, I have no issue with homosexuality, it's just not that bad honestly. I mean, I have difficulty with the fake effeminent crap that's become the staple (I'm sorry, that many people cannot be holding that much back. They're just acting like that cause they think it's how they're supposed to.)

Hog, my dad also served in the Marines during Vietnam, and when I get a chance I'll have to ask him where exactly in Vietnam he served. He's since collected pretty much all things Vietnam War, or Marines related. It's always been a huge part of his life, and okay, I sort of enjoyed being in the nacy and taking the mickey out of him for being a Marine, but we're really Irish, so verbal beatings are a sign of affection.

[82Marine89]

Can't rep you again yet, Marine. As is, I have no issue with homosexuality, it's just not that bad honestly. I mean, I have difficulty with the fake effeminent crap that's become the staple (I'm sorry, that many people cannot be holding that much back. They're just acting like that cause they think it's how they're supposed to.)


:clap:

[HogTrash]

Nice. Attack my being a Marine. Now that's something that has never happened before. Nice thing about that is I made it through bootcamp and earned the title of United States Marine. I don't need to prove shit to you or anyone else.



Now you have changed it from the masses to individual thought. That's fine and a great way of ducking the question because I can't question your personal views so if you want to say something is immoral then go ahead, it is your right to do so. Good thing is your opinion doesn't carry much weight in society.



I never said homosexuality was right or wrong and political correctness has nothing to do with it. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever been in a three way with two men and a woman or two women and a man? Ever take part in an orgy or were you an alter boy growing up?



If you are also a jarhead, then Semper Fi. If you served in Vietnam thanks for that. Having seen your photo I can agree that you are ugly. Never said you were insecure, that was only my opinion of normal. As for the 'Junior' comment I guess I might have gotten under your skin.

Finally, if you don't care what they do in their house they why do you care if they hold hands in public? Don't you and your wife hold hands in public? Are you not flaunting your heterosexuality? See, I thought we served so that those who didn't or were not able to would also be safe and live as they wish. We served so they could be free to do what they want. I don't care if it is gay sex, group sex, praying to the devil, or wearing white sheets. I don't have to agree with it, but as long as it is legal they have the right to do it.
If you don't like it get your ass off this board and run for office. Effect change instead of bitching about it.Temecula, California is where you call home, huh?!

When people are submerged in sick perversion, the weak ones cannot help but be affected and influenced by it.

You have become another victim of political correctness indoctrination and programming...Homosexuality is a sick perversion.

Next you will be telling me that a man marrying his ewe is acceptable and I shouldn't complain when my children see them kissing in public.

Let the perverts have their perversions but keep it in the gutters out of sight of children and decent moral people and never grant it legitimacy.

[82Marine89]

Temecula, California is where you call home, huh?!

When people are submerged in sick perversion, the weak ones cannot help but be affected and influenced by it.

You have become another victim of political correctness indoctrination and programming...Homosexuality is a sick perversion.

Next you will be telling me that a man marrying his ewe is acceptable and I shouldn't complain when my children see them kissing in public.

Let the perverts have their perversions but keep it in the gutters out of sight of children and decent moral people and never grant it legitimacy.

Let's try and stay on topic here. Bestiality is not analogous and is usually the argument of someone who has nothing of substance to say.

First, I do call Temecula, California home. I live on 5 acres out in the country and you need to take 3 dirt roads to get here. Riverside County is probably the most conservative county in the state. Where one lives has nothing to do with their point of view and is simply another attack to hide the fact you still have nothing of substance to add to this debate.

Second, I guess since you are the one who decides what is moral and immoral I suppose you would want to put all of these perverse people in jail. Lock them up and indoctrinate them into being heterosexuals. While you're at it we can lock up all unwed mothers and deadbeat dads. Bikers should be locked up also since they're all felons and are the dredge of society. Sound good to you?

Riddle me this HogTrash. Why should you be allowed to live your life as you wish, but other people should not? What do they do that screws up your life and keeps you from living it? What do they do in the exercising of their freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution that infringes on yours? Do they offend you? Show me where you have the right to not be offended. Do they disgust you? Show me where you have the right not to be disgusted. As for your children, explain to them that people are different and they should be accepting of them. If you think what they are doing is a sin, pray for them. If you are a Christian, don't judge them lest you be judged. Should I go on?

[DragonStryk72]

Temecula, California is where you call home, huh?!

When people are submerged in sick perversion, the weak ones cannot help but be affected and influenced by it.

You have become another victim of political correctness indoctrination and programming...Homosexuality is a sick perversion.

Next you will be telling me that a man marrying his ewe is acceptable and I shouldn't complain when my children see them kissing in public.

Let the perverts have their perversions but keep it in the gutters out of sight of children and decent moral people and never grant it legitimacy.

Wow, you really went with that argument? How many times has the "homosexuality=bestiality" been shot down just on this board? Damn, the guy who made the original comment doesn't even use it any more.

See, you still don't get it Hog, you have your head up your ass, and the way that everyone can tell this is by looking at your arguments. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically someone who has been indoctrinated. How convenient for you that every single person in the world that disagrees is indoctrinated.

[HogTrash]

Let's try and stay on topic here. Bestiality is not analogous and is usually the argument of someone who has nothing of substance to say.

First, I do call Temecula, California home. I live on 5 acres out in the country and you need to take 3 dirt roads to get here. Riverside County is probably the most conservative county in the state. Where one lives has nothing to do with their point of view and is simply another attack to hide the fact you still have nothing of substance to add to this debate.

Second, I guess since you are the one who decides what is moral and immoral I suppose you would want to put all of these perverse people in jail. Lock them up and indoctrinate them into being heterosexuals. While you're at it we can lock up all unwed mothers and deadbeat dads. Bikers should be locked up also since they're all felons and are the dredge of society. Sound good to you?

Riddle me this HogTrash. Why should you be allowed to live your life as you wish, but other people should not? What do they do that screws up your life and keeps you from living it? What do they do in the exercising of their freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution that infringes on yours? Do they offend you? Show me where you have the right to not be offended. Do they disgust you? Show me where you have the right not to be disgusted. As for your children, explain to them that people are different and they should be accepting of them. If you think what they are doing is a sin, pray for them. If you are a Christian, don't judge them lest you be judged. Should I go on?I admit that my lifestyle has influenced me to do a few things that would not be considered socially acceptable but you can rest assured I never attempted to legitimize any of those actions to the good and moral majority, especially where children are concerned.

You wanna butt-fuck your buddy or your pet german sheppard knock yourself out sweet heart, but don't try to teach my children it's a perfectly legitimate lifestyle for some people...Sick perversion is sick perversion, no matter how well you sugar coat it.

You are of weak character and have alloud yourself to be dragged down into the muck...As a United States Marine you are expected to be above the influence of the human trash of the world...When you disgrace yourself, you disgrace the Corp.

I can only hope and pray you are not an example of the new Marines.

[82Marine89]

Originally Posted by 82Marine89
Let's try and stay on topic here. Bestiality is not analogous and is usually the argument of someone who has nothing of substance to say.

First, I do call Temecula, California home. I live on 5 acres out in the country and you need to take 3 dirt roads to get here. Riverside County is probably the most conservative county in the state. Where one lives has nothing to do with their point of view and is simply another attack to hide the fact you still have nothing of substance to add to this debate.

Second, I guess since you are the one who decides what is moral and immoral I suppose you would want to put all of these perverse people in jail. Lock them up and indoctrinate them into being heterosexuals. While you're at it we can lock up all unwed mothers and deadbeat dads. Bikers should be locked up also since they're all felons and are the dredge of society. Sound good to you?

Riddle me this HogTrash. Why should you be allowed to live your life as you wish, but other people should not? What do they do that screws up your life and keeps you from living it? What do they do in the exercising of their freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution that infringes on yours? Do they offend you? Show me where you have the right to not be offended. Do they disgust you? Show me where you have the right not to be disgusted. As for your children, explain to them that people are different and they should be accepting of them. If you think what they are doing is a sin, pray for them. If you are a Christian, don't judge them lest you be judged. Should I go on?


I admit that my lifestyle has influenced me to do a few things that would not be considered socially acceptable but you can rest assured I never attempted to legitimize any of those actions to the good and moral majority, especially where children are concerned.

You wanna butt-fuck your buddy or your pet german sheppard knock yourself out sweet heart, but don't try to teach my children it's a perfectly legitimate lifestyle for some people...Sick perversion is sick perversion, no matter how well you sugar coat it.

You are of weak character and have alloud yourself to be dragged down into the muck...As a United States Marine you are expected to be above the influence of the human trash of the world...When you disgrace yourself, you disgrace the Corp.

I can only hope and pray you are not an example of the new Marines.

You are a complete and total idiot. You can't stay on topic and need to resort to personal attacks when you lose an argument. You want to attack my being a Marine? Fine, have at it Sally. You have no clue as to why you served. It's not the majority that you need to keep happy. It's the minority that would otherwise be abused if there were not a rule of law that needs someone or something to protect them.

Tell me why you feel the need to keep talking about butt-fucking. Family member abuse you as a child? Family pet have its way with you? Victim of petty-coat punishment and now you have issues? I guess it's alright that you did wrong and feel you should be forgiven, but you won't share that same forgiveness to someone you feel is doing wrong. Nice double standard.

It is you, in your own words, that has disgraced the Corps. You admit to being an undesirable yet you claim to uphold the highest standards and traditions of the United States Marine Corps? You say I am of weak character but say your lifestyle influenced you to do wrong? You might have served in the military, but you are not a Marine. All the Marines I know, to include WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets from my Marine Corps League Detachment feel the way I do. They don't necessarily agree with it, but they support the rule of law and feel protections should be equal under the Constitution. You know about the Constitution don't you? That pesky piece of paper that guarantees all people equal rights in this great Nation?

Finally, it's allowed, not alloud. Buy a spell-check.

[HogTrash]

You are a complete and total idiot. You can't stay on topic and need to resort to personal attacks when you lose an argument. You want to attack my being a Marine? Fine, have at it Sally.Attacking you was not my intention, I was simply calling it like I see it.

However it does honestly hurt me to see America's finest falling in step with the political correctness brigade.

I like to think of us as being above the weaknesses of the masses.


You have no clue as to why you served. It's not the majority that you need to keep happy. It's the minority that would otherwise be abused if there were not a rule of law that needs someone or something to protect them. Murderers are a minority...Child molesters are a minority...Homosexuals and sick disgusting perverts of any kind are a minority.

I do not fight for the rights of criminals to practice lawlessness nor social deviants to legitimize their immorality.


Tell me why you feel the need to keep talking about butt-fucking.For the shock factor to better make my point...It seemed perfectly obvious to me.


Family member abuse you as a child? Family pet have its way with you? Victim of petty-coat punishment and now you have issues?This is a very typical homosexual/PC attack on anyone thought to be attacking homosexuals.


I guess it's alright that you did wrong and feel you should be forgiven, but you won't share that same forgiveness to someone you feel is doing wrong. Nice double standard.I am a fair man and have no problem with forgiveness however these people are not asking forgiveness, but are demanding legitamacy and acceptance for their sick perversions and immoral lifestyles.


It is you, in your own words, that has disgraced the Corps. You admit to being an undesirable yet you claim to uphold the highest standards and traditions of the United States Marine Corps? You say I am of weak character but say your lifestyle influenced you to do wrong? You might have served in the military, but you are not a Marine. All the Marines I know, to include WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets from my Marine Corps League Detachment feel the way I do. They don't necessarily agree with it, but they support the rule of law and feel protections should be equal under the Constitution. You know about the Constitution don't you? That pesky piece of paper that guarantees all people equal rights in this great Nation?Damn bro, you have swallowed the political correctness belief system, hook line and sinker...You are definately of feeble mind and weak character.....[Hmmm?...Let me guess?...You have gay friends?]

I have always known that homosexuality was a sick perversion practiced by immoral deviants and political correctness indoctrination and programming has failed to alter my beliefs...Strong Character.


Finally, it's allowed, not alloud. Buy a spell-check.I never use spellcheck...Besides, the PC crowd needs something to fall back on in order to save face when they have no rational argument for their beliefs...Du yoo cee?

[DragonStryk72]

Attacking you was not my intention, I was simply calling it like I see it.

However it does honestly hurt me to see America's finest falling in step with the political correctness brigade.

I like to think of us as being above the weaknesses of the masses.

Murderers are a minority...Child molesters are a minority...Homosexuals and sick disgusting perverts of any kind are a minority.

I do not fight for the rights of criminals to practice lawlessness nor social deviants to legitimize their immorality.

For the shock factor to better make my point...It seemed perfectly obvious to me.

This is a very typical homosexual/PC attack on anyone thought to be attacking homosexuals.

I am a fair man and have no problem with forgiveness however these people are not asking forgiveness, but are demanding legitamacy and acceptance for their sick perversions and immoral lifestyles.

Damn bro, you have swallowed the political correctness belief system, hook line and sinker...You are definately of feeble mind and weak character.....[Hmmm?...Let me guess?...You have gay friends?]

I have always known that homosexuality was a sick perversion practiced by immoral deviants and political correctness indoctrination and programming has failed to alter my beliefs...Strong Character.

I never use spellcheck...Besides, the PC crowd needs something to fall back on in order to save face when they have no rational argument for their beliefs...Du yoo cee?

See, Marine, like I said. If you disagree, then you are brainwashed, there is no point whatsoever in debate with Hog, because even if you start to make valid points, he will simply decide you are amongst the brainwashed (ie everyone who disagrees) and that's that.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




Californication is fill of sodomites and faggots.



1. Yeah I hear yahz,....you can't sling a dead cat without hitting a fag.
2. They are all up in Hollyweird, fagging out behind the movie scenes.
3. I think we should throw Californication out of the Union.
4. Pull and Punt, snip it in the bud.
5. All this Political Correctness makes me sick!
6. I don't want to respect fags life styles, not ever!
7. I think they may get hit by a haiti earth quake for it.
8. I wouldn't be surprised one bit.
9. Then all the bleeding heart liberals/fags, will be asking the rest of this Nation for help,...help is the fags.





Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[82Marine89]

Attacking you was not my intention, I was simply calling it like I see it.

However it does honestly hurt me to see America's finest falling in step with the political correctness brigade.

I like to think of us as being above the weaknesses of the masses.

Murderers are a minority...Child molesters are a minority...Homosexuals and sick disgusting perverts of any kind are a minority.

I do not fight for the rights of criminals to practice lawlessness nor social deviants to legitimize their immorality.

For the shock factor to better make my point...It seemed perfectly obvious to me.

This is a very typical homosexual/PC attack on anyone thought to be attacking homosexuals.

I am a fair man and have no problem with forgiveness however these people are not asking forgiveness, but are demanding legitamacy and acceptance for their sick perversions and immoral lifestyles.

Damn bro, you have swallowed the political correctness belief system, hook line and sinker...You are definately of feeble mind and weak character.....[Hmmm?...Let me guess?...You have gay friends?]

I have always known that homosexuality was a sick perversion practiced by immoral deviants and political correctness indoctrination and programming has failed to alter my beliefs...Strong Character.

I never use spellcheck...Besides, the PC crowd needs something to fall back on in order to save face when they have no rational argument for their beliefs...Du yoo cee?


Since you can't answer a simple question I guess this one-sided debate/name calling session is over. Take care Hogwarts.

[82Marine89]

See, Marine, like I said. If you disagree, then you are brainwashed, there is no point whatsoever in debate with Hog, because even if you start to make valid points, he will simply decide you are amongst the brainwashed (ie everyone who disagrees) and that's that.

The guy is a homophobe. He was probably buggered by a priest as a youth.

[DragonStryk72]

Nah, I think that explanation is too simple. He's homophobic, sure, but I doubt it's specifically attached to anything that happened to him personally. Likely, it's the more drab and ordinary thing that he is clinging to whatever he can hate.

[82Marine89]

Nah, I think that explanation is too simple. He's homophobic, sure, but I doubt it's specifically attached to anything that happened to him personally. Likely, it's the more drab and ordinary thing that he is clinging to whatever he can hate.

He's an indoctrinated party line Republican.

[HogTrash]

The guy is a homophobe. He was probably buggered by a priest as a youth.
Nah, I think that explanation is too simple. He's homophobic, sure, but I doubt it's specifically attached to anything that happened to him personally. Likely, it's the more drab and ordinary thing that he is clinging to whatever he can hate.Did you forget to include that I am inbred trailer trash who would need a couple IQ points before I could even be considered a moron?

Your average, run of the mill, everyday, typicalness bores me fellas.

You boys are perfect examples of modern day sheep, following the proverbial herd.

[BoogyMan]

The guy is a homophobe. He was probably buggered by a priest as a youth.

Hold on there Turbo, why is someone who vehemently disagrees with homosexuality a "homophobe?"

[82Marine89]

Hold on there Turbo, why is someone who vehemently disagrees with homosexuality a "homophobe?"

I said he was. That was not a generalization.

[Gaffer]

I said he was. That was not a generalization.

Very liberal of you to say that. Now does that make you hogphobic?

[82Marine89]

Did you forget to include that I am inbred trailer trash who would need a couple IQ points before I could even be considered a moron?

Your average, run of the mill, everyday, typicalness bores me fellas.

You boys are perfect examples of modern day sheep, following the proverbial herd.

When you learn how to debate give me a call.

[BoogyMan]

I said he was. That was not a generalization.

There is a huge difference in the vehement disapproval of homosexuality and the fear of homosexuals.

[82Marine89]

There is a huge difference in the vehement disapproval of homosexuality and the fear of homosexuals.

I know and I stand by what I said.

[BoogyMan]

I know and I stand by what I said.

But can you prove it? That is the standard by which we all have to present our assertions. Disapproval does not equate to hate or fear.

[82Marine89]

But can you prove it? That is the standard by which we all have to present our assertions. Disapproval does not equate to hate or fear.

Read my discourse with HogTrash, it didn't matter what I said he resorted to name calling to include making a comment that I support a persons right to be what they want because I was friends with or related to a homosexual. That is a homophobic statement.

[BoogyMan]

Read my discourse with HogTrash, it didn't matter what I said he resorted to name calling to include making a comment that I support a persons right to be what they want because I was friends with or related to a homosexual. That is a homophobic statement.

Sorry, but that doesn't equate to homophobic commentary, it is him thinking you might be justifying due to a relationship. People do that kind of thing all the time in debate. I can't really abide the name calling, but the term homophobia doesn't really apply here.

I too am completely against homosexuality, but i have no hatred nor fear of homosexuals.

[82Marine89]

Sorry, but that doesn't equate to homophobic commentary, it is him thinking you might be justifying due to a relationship. People do that kind of thing all the time in debate. I can't really abide the name calling, but the term homophobia doesn't really apply here.

I too am completely against homosexuality, but i have no hatred nor fear of homosexuals.

Do you support their right to legally be who they are?

[Kathianne]

Do you support their right to legally be who they are?

Not to me, but what the heck. Civil unions? Sure. Marriage, no.

[HogTrash]

When you learn how to debate give me a call.I'm pretty sure I did an excellent job making my points while all you managed to do was spout the same tired old liberal PC programmed party line.

Have a nice day. :bye1:

[BoogyMan]

Do you support their right to legally be who they are?

What do you mean? If you are talking about marriage, why should marriage be redefined in order to change it into something it is not? I would also respectfully submit that you have not proven hompohobia.

[82Marine89]

Not to me, but what the heck. Civil unions? Sure. Marriage, no.

I wasn't even thinking of that, but now that you mention it, why not?

[82Marine89]

You sir, are a born loser...

Again with the name calling. Nice.

[Kathianne]

I wasn't even thinking of that, but now that you mention it, why not?

Wrong for our civilization. On the other hand, I believe we also need to give individuals the freedoms and rights that go hand in hand with citizenship. So I'd vote for civil unions, but against marriage law changes.

[SassyLady]

Originally Posted by Kathianne
Not to me, but what the heck. Civil unions? Sure. Marriage, no


I wasn't even thinking of that, but now that you mention it, why not?

If civil unions are available, then why push so hard for marriage?

[82Marine89]

Wrong for our civilization. On the other hand, I believe we also need to give individuals the freedoms and rights that go hand in hand with citizenship. So I'd vote for civil unions, but against marriage law changes.

So heterosexuals get different rights than homosexuals?

[82Marine89]

If civil unions are available, then why push so hard for marriage?

What if you were only allowed a civil union?

[BoogyMan]

So heterosexuals get different rights than homosexuals?

If marriage were betweeen man/man woman/woman you might have a point, but you don't. The ONLY way for marriage to apply is to redefine it for modern sensibilities and that simply is not right.

[82Marine89]

If marriage were betweeen man/man woman/woman you might have a point, but you don't. The ONLY way for marriage to apply is to redefine it for modern sensibilities and that simply is not right.

Why is it not right?

[Kathianne]

So heterosexuals get different rights than homosexuals?

What special rights?

[82Marine89]

What special rights?

Marriage.

[BoogyMan]

Why is it not right?

Marriage is a man and a woman. Why must that institution be mangled in order to facilitate and aberrant psychological behavior?

[gabosaurus]

Well this thread has certainly been hijacked well. In the usual DP manner.

[82Marine89]

Marriage is a man and a woman. Why must that institution be mangled in order to facilitate and aberrant psychological behavior?

Says who?

[BoogyMan]

Says who?

That is the way it is, and has always been.

[Gaffer]

So 82 are you also for marriage between a man and a goat? Where do you draw the line?

[Agnapostate]

Can goats conceptualize marriage and make informed and rational decisions about entry into legal contracts? Why don't you say something that isn't completely idiotic?

[Gaffer]

Can goats conceptualize marriage and make informed and rational decisions about entry into legal contracts? Why don't you say something that isn't completely idiotic?

Okay, FUCK YOU!

How's that.

[82Marine89]

That is the way it is, and has always been.

So that makes it right?

[82Marine89]

So 82 are you also for marriage between a man and a goat? Where do you draw the line?

No I'm not and as I told HogWarts it's not analogous. This isn't about personal opinions, it's about what Rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Nukeman]

So heterosexuals get different rights than homosexuals?Actually the fallacy of your argument is that heterosexuals get special treatment. They don't, it is NOT legal for two heterosexual men/women to get married just as it is NOT legal for two homosexual men/women to get married.

So the whole special treatment argument is moot and holds NO water end of story..

Now if your telling me that two heterosexual men/women are allowed to marry and get the benefits of marriage than you would have a valid argument but since they are not allowed the same as gay couples are not allowed there is NO SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

Marriage.

What rights does 'marriage' confer that civil unions don't?

[Agnapostate]

Okay, FUCK YOU!

How's that.

Sounds like you want to be a sodomite but don't want marriage. :poke:

[BoogyMan]

So that makes it right?

What makes it wrong? You are arguing for the redefinition of marriage to include a psychological aberration, therefore you must prove it necessary.

[HogTrash]

Can goats conceptualize marriage and make informed and rational decisions about entry into legal contracts? Why don't you say something that isn't completely idiotic?Homosexuals have absolutely no more "conception" of what "marriage" actually means than does a "goat".

[82Marine89]

Actually the fallacy of your argument is that heterosexuals get special treatment. They don't, it is NOT legal for two heterosexual men/women to get married just as it is NOT legal for two homosexual men/women to get married.

So the whole special treatment argument is moot and holds NO water end of story..

Now if your telling me that two heterosexual men/women are allowed to marry and get the benefits of marriage than you would have a valid argument but since they are not allowed the same as gay couples are not allowed there is NO SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually they can get married, just not all States recognize it.

[82Marine89]

What rights does 'marriage' confer that civil unions don't?

If there is no difference, then why can't they marry?

[82Marine89]

What makes it wrong? You are arguing for the redefinition of marriage to include a psychological aberration, therefore you must prove it necessary.

Am I? This is from Merriam Webster...

mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage)

[Kathianne]

If there is no difference, then why can't they marry?

Because marriage is also religious and has been for eons. It has cultural implications. Seems like the religious deserve respect too, no special benefits, but respect.

Besides, if it's all about 'rights' why the hang up on your part with word?

[HogTrash]

If there is no difference, then why can't they marry?Why will gays and liberals not accept "Civil Union" even though it garauntees all the same legal rights as "Marriage" ???

Please allow me to answer that for you...Because it was never the homosexuals objective to simply have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The goals of liberals is to destroy the sanctity of marriage and everything else that is good, decent, pure, honorable and ethical to shred the moral fabric of America.

This is simply another tactic to destroy America and bring about the marxist utopia the liberals are struggling for...It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights or equality.

[Kathianne]

Why will gays and liberals not accept "Civil Union" even though it garauntees all the same legal rights as "Marriage" ???

Please allow me to answer that for you...Because it was never the homosexuals objective to simply have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The goals of liberals is to destroy the sanctity of marriage and everything else that is good, decent, pure, honorable and ethical to shred the moral fabric of America.

This is simply another tactic to destroy America and bring about the marxist utopia the liberals are struggling for...It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights or equality.

Oh there are plenty of Marxist issues, I don't think this is one of them. Plenty of conservative gays want marriage made legal. However, they've sense enough to want it at state level, not federal.

[glockmail]

Queer marriage is an abomination on society.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, how is it an abomination? It effects no one other than those directly involved (i.e. the gay people). There's no rape involved, and no crime being committed, it is a lifestyle. Definitely not a lifestyle I'd go with, since I think manparts are nasty (well, that and my favorite act can't be performed on a guy), but still, there is no one being harmed by this.

Have some faith guys, marriage has survived wars, plagues, famines, the rise and fall of every great empire, and even the sexual revolution. It is practiced in every single culture on the planet, and has been for pretty much the last 10,000 years.

Trying to accuse gays of trying to destroy marriage is also false, and really, it is just a weak coward's argument. Bullshit marriages in Vegas have a far greater negative effect on marriage than more people wanting to get married.

Also, this is the same argument for polygamous marriage. It also has a long, long tradition, but everyone refers to it as though there is only one type of marriage, but there isn't, and there hasn't been for most of recorded history.

Then there's the people who will try the other argument: Well, then I could marry my dog if I wanted to. No, cause that's bestiality, that's completely different than a sentient man being married to another sentient man, or a sentient woman being married to another sentient woman.

So, if you don't want gay marriage, then don't marry them, but denying them the inherent right to marriage, to the inherent right to liberty and happiness that they are due over what is entirely a religious point, and harms none, is simply against all things that America was founded on.

[Kathianne]

Okay, how is it an abomination? It effects no one other than those directly involved (i.e. the gay people). There's no rape involved, and no crime being committed, it is a lifestyle. Definitely not a lifestyle I'd go with, since I think manparts are nasty (well, that and my favorite act can't be performed on a guy), but still, there is no one being harmed by this.

Have some faith guys, marriage has survived wars, plagues, famines, the rise and fall of every great empire, and even the sexual revolution. It is practiced in every single culture on the planet, and has been for pretty much the last 10,000 years.

Trying to accuse gays of trying to destroy marriage is also false, and really, it is just a weak coward's argument. Bullshit marriages in Vegas have a far greater negative effect on marriage than more people wanting to get married.

Also, this is the same argument for polygamous marriage. It also has a long, long tradition, but everyone refers to it as though there is only one type of marriage, but there isn't, and there hasn't been for most of recorded history.

Then there's the people who will try the other argument: Well, then I could marry my dog if I wanted to. No, cause that's bestiality, that's completely different than a sentient man being married to another sentient man, or a sentient woman being married to another sentient woman.

So, if you don't want gay marriage, then don't marry them, but denying them the inherent right to marriage, to the inherent right to liberty and happiness that they are due over what is entirely a religious point, and harms none, is simply against all things that America was founded on.

There is no inherent right to a marriage license, anymore than a driver's license. However, there is the rule of law and all should have the same rights regarding such. Civil unions fit the bill, while respecting religion as well as fair application of laws.

[HogTrash]

Oh there are plenty of Marxist issues, I don't think this is one of them. Plenty of conservative gays want marriage made legal. However, they've sense enough to want it at state level, not federal.Gays are the willing pawns of the marxists that use them the same as they use their liberal pawns to promote their marxist agenda.

Sick disgusting perverts should never be granted the same rights as others nor anything else that would legitimize their immoral lifestyles.

[Kathianne]

Gays are the willing pawns of the marxists that use them the same as they use their liberal pawns to promote their marxist agenda.

Sick disgusting perverts should never be granted the same rights as others nor anything else that would legitimize their immoral lifestyles.

Not all, likely not most. As I've said, I fully support their rights being protected via civil unions, not marriage.

[glockmail]

If queers marry then society will have to lie to children and teach them that homosexuality is normal moral natural and healthy, which it ain't.

Think of the children. Don't lie to them.

[BoogyMan]

Am I? This is from Merriam Webster...

mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage)

I see that you can find the modern edition of a dictionary, and can even look up a word. Now do the same thing with a dictionary that has not been edited with a politically correct slant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

The link above gives a compendium of dictionary lookups for marriage. Try again big guy.

[HogTrash]

If queers marry then society will have to lie to children and teach them that homosexuality is normal moral natural and healthy, which it ain't.

Think of the children. Don't lie to them.Sadly, many people who have been brainwashed by political correctness already do.

[82Marine89]

Oh there are plenty of Marxist issues, I don't think this is one of them. Plenty of conservative gays want marriage made legal. However, they've sense enough to want it at state level, not federal.

Thanks.

[82Marine89]

I see that you can find the modern edition of a dictionary, and can even look up a word. Now do the same thing with a dictionary that has not been edited with a politically correct slant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

The link above gives a compendium of dictionary lookups for marriage. Try again big guy.

Merriam Webster has been around since 1831. Ask.com has been around since 1996. Which one is modern? I'll stick with tried and true.

[82Marine89]

There is no inherent right to a marriage license, anymore than a driver's license. However, there is the rule of law and all should have the same rights regarding such. Civil unions fit the bill, while respecting religion as well as fair application of laws.

But since the government controls it they should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. If the church controlled marriage I could agree with you, but they don't.

[BoogyMan]

Merriam Webster has been around since 1831. Ask.com has been around since 1996. Which one is modern? I'll stick with tried and true.

Only a liar would try to claim that the PC definition you posted has been there since 1831, I have not found you to be a liar......yet.

I don't guess that you actually looked to see that the definition I posted comes from a tool querying many different dictionaries. The definition you posted is modern edition of Meriam Webster.

You are simply "sticking" with what you find that agrees with you, even though you know my analysis of it's content to be true.

[DragonStryk72]

There is no inherent right to a marriage license, anymore than a driver's license. However, there is the rule of law and all should have the same rights regarding such. Civil unions fit the bill, while respecting religion as well as fair application of laws.

Okay then, civil unions for everyone, since it's the same thing, really. you'd be happy with that, right?

[DragonStryk72]

If queers marry then society will have to lie to children and teach them that homosexuality is normal moral natural and healthy, which it ain't.

Think of the children. Don't lie to them.

Wow, really, that tired ass argument? you know they used that same line for keeping blacks of schools, right? "Think of the children", ugh, come on man, at least don't do my work for me.

Uh, no society doesn't. Society can simply recognize it's existence, and move on.

[BoogyMan]

Okay then, civil unions for everyone, since it's the same thing, really. you'd be happy with that, right?

So if you are not able to redefine marriage you feel it should be abolished? Egads man, that is insanity.

[HogTrash]

Only a liar would try to claim that the PC definition you posted has been there since 1831, I have not found you to be a liar......yet.

I don't guess that you actually looked to see that the definition I posted comes from a tool querying many different dictionaries. The definition you posted is modern edition of Meriam Webster.

You are simply "sticking" with what you find that agrees with you, even though you know my analysis of it's content to be true.Those who have closed their minds to everything but political correctness seek only confirmation of what they already believe and are programmed to reject all else.

[PostmodernProphet]

It effects no one other than those directly involved (i.e. the gay people).

if it was not intended to effect people other than those directly involved it would not be necessary to pass a law to accomplish it.....they could do it in the privacy of their own home.....it is BECAUSE they want it to effect other people that they are pressing for a change in the law....

[Kathianne]

But since the government controls it they should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. If the church controlled marriage I could agree with you, but they don't.

Again, what 'rights' are denied with civil unions?

[82Marine89]

Again, what 'rights' are denied with civil unions?

Again, if it is just semantics why not call it marriage? I posted a definition of marriage from Merriam-Webster, not some internet search engine. I understand the desire for respect for the religious institutions, but what about the respect for two people that want to get married? By giving them civil unions you are saying they are second class citizens that don't deserve what the rest of us have.

[82Marine89]

Only a liar would try to claim that the PC definition you posted has been there since 1831, I have not found you to be a liar......yet.

I don't guess that you actually looked to see that the definition I posted comes from a tool querying many different dictionaries. The definition you posted is modern edition of Meriam Webster.

You are simply "sticking" with what you find that agrees with you, even though you know my analysis of it's content to be true.

Read what I said...


Originally Posted by 82Marine89
Merriam Webster has been around since 1831. Ask.com has been around since 1996. Which one is modern? I'll stick with tried and true.

Where is the lie in that? I give more credence to Merriam Webster than I do to Ask.com. In my college courses, MW is accepted, Ask.com is not.

[82Marine89]

Those who have closed their minds to everything but political correctness seek only confirmation of what they already believe and are programmed to reject all else.

Talk about having a closed mind.

[HogTrash]

Talk about having a closed mind.The fact that my beliefs are considered radical and non-mainstream is evidence that I think outside the box and am free to consider all information to draw my own conclusions unlike those like you who follow the standard PC system of beliefs without question.

[glockmail]

Wow, really, that tired ass argument? you know they used that same line for keeping blacks of schools, right? "Think of the children", ugh, come on man, at least don't do my work for me.

Uh, no society doesn't. Society can simply recognize it's existence, and move on. Oh really, the argument for segregation was that blacks are not moral normal natural and healthy? I think you're making this up.

[BoogyMan]

Read what I said...

Where is the lie in that? I give more credence to Merriam Webster than I do to Ask.com. In my college courses, MW is accepted, Ask.com is not.

Don't play innocent, you tried to intimate that the definition you posted was the original definition. Had you intended otherwise, you would certainly have said so.

Semantic games will fail you EVERY time.

[82Marine89]

Don't play innocent, you tried to intimate that the definition you posted was the original definition. Had you intended otherwise, you would certainly have said so.

Semantic games will fail you EVERY time.

Not the original, the accepted.

[SassyLady]

Well this thread has certainly been hijacked well. In the usual DP manner.

Perhaps you should monitor the threads you start instead of just participating in a drive by manner Gabby. Why don't you address the questions that have been directed to your original statement..........instead you post a provocative subject and then just sit back for awhile and then jump in with snide remarks and yet you never defended your original statement.

Perhaps the DP community found something more interesting to discuss because you couldn't defend your original assumption.

[DragonStryk72]

Oh really, the argument for segregation was that blacks are not moral normal natural and healthy? I think you're making this up.

Ah, good, the putting words in my mouth part. no, the Think of the children comment.

[glockmail]

Ah, good, the putting words in my mouth part. no, the Think of the children comment. Sorry but I don't see that telling children the truth can hurt them. With this issue we are telling them the truth and with your segregation issue segregationists were hiding the truth. I don't see your point other than trying to avoid discussing my legitimate points.

[Trigg]

Perhaps you should monitor the threads you start instead of just participating in a drive by manner Gabby. Why don't you address the questions that have been directed to your original statement..........instead you post a provocative subject and then just sit back for awhile and then jump in with snide remarks and yet you never defended your original statement.

Perhaps the DP community found something more interesting to discuss because you couldn't defend your original assumption.

annoying isn't it!!

[HogTrash]

This thread just isn't any fun since they moved it. :dunno:

[Kathianne]

This thread just isn't any fun since they moved it. :dunno:

Sorry. Got way, way OT.

[HogTrash]

Sorry. Got way, way OT.Worry not little one, I'll adjust. :thumb:

[82Marine89]

Sorry. Got way, way OT.

If you want to talk about the Tea Party, I'm the member on the California page wearing the uniform in a 5 ton truck.

Back to this topic...

Personal opinions aside, would someone tell me why homosexuals should not have the same Rights as heterosexuals. Not special Rights, but equal Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

[HogTrash]

If you want to talk about the Tea Party, I'm the member on the California page wearing the uniform in a 5 ton truck.

Back to this topic...

Personal opinions aside, would someone tell me why homosexuals should not have the same Rights as heterosexuals. Not special Rights, but equal Rights guaranteed under the Constitution."Personal opinions aside"???...LOL!...I can see how this would bother you considering all of your opinions actually came from the PC Handbook For Good Little Liberals who can't think for themselves.

Political Correctness has short-circuited your ability to think rationally...All you know is your standard programmed PC rebuttals...Take a deep breath and try to clear the PC in your head for just a few minutes.

{I'm sure this is a waste of my time...Years of PC indoctrination and programming cannot be undone in a few posts...Programmed people need to be deprogrammed by people they know, trust and even love if possible}

Marraige has always been a legal and religious union between a man and a woman, not only for the purpose of love and companionship, but for a partnership to procreate and love, care for and nurture their offspring into adulthood.

A man and a woman are two unique and seperate creatures, but of the same species that compliment each other and fit together like a bow and arrow, a hat and coat, a saddle and bridle, a lock and key, a hammer and nail.

Like these things, a man and woman each bring their own unique qualities and characteristics to a relationship...Two bows, two hats, two saddles, two locks and two hammers bring nothing.

A man brings the masculine physical strength, aggression, protection, sustainance and being the one who thinks with his head, the ability to make tough decisions when necessary.

A womans feminine qualities contributes baby food, nurtureing, compassion, a calming quality and a kind and gentle heart into decision making when a situation calls for the neccessity.

A relationship between two people of the same sex is based on nothing more than perversion and immorality...The only thing that brought them together in the first place was an unatural sexual attraction for the same sex which is not a grounds for marriage.

To legitimize the perversion of homosexuality by granting gays anything, belittles and damages the sanctity of marriage and the morality of the human race which is a necessary ingrediate for civilization...We are not savage mindless beasts.

Be advised, I will not respond to stupid questions like "how does it damage the sanctity of marriage"...If you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself then you are not smart enough for me to be wasting my time on.

[jimnyc]

Back to this topic...

Personal opinions aside, would someone tell me why homosexuals should not have the same Rights as heterosexuals. Not special Rights, but equal Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

I'm going to reply, but please no one get angry with me! It's just my opinion, and I have respect for all participants in this thread.

I truly believe that the queers already have equal rights. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, and neither can they, but they have the same right as me to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Marriage, although certified by our government, has ALWAYS been about a religious ceremony bonding a male and female in "holy matrimony". In that respect, granting same sex marriages will be giving them special rights.

They will tell you that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, yet only in the past few decades have you seen the "agenda" come to the surface and demands of equality. Where were they since the beginning of time when man and woman have been marrying since? Why, in the beginning of this agenda, were they pretty much only after civil unions and to be granted the benefits that married couples receive, and once that started making some headway they started on the new path of demanding to have marriage redefined to include them? It went from the closet, to recognition, to laws for their safety, to civil unions, and now to marriage. If we keep giving in to their demands of redefining things, where does it stop? Once you open the door of the redefinition of marriage, what do you then say to the proponents that come forth and demand equal rights for other wacky "loved ones"?

IMO, give them civil unions, give them every last benefit that a married couple receives, and call it a day.

** An aside note - nobody in our country feels our constitution should be messed with. They don't even want to mess with it to ban the burning of the American Flag, but it's ok to mess with it to grant rights to those with abnormal desires for love with the same sex?

[Abbey Marie]

One thing that needs to be addressed in this thread: The man-beast marriage example/argument does not have to be analogous to gay marriage to be rational. The true nature of the argument is not that it is an analogy, but that once marriage is redefined, we are on a slippery slope with no end in sight. Those who favor the idea of gay marriage, would do well to consider that they are championing something that may go very, very wrong. You simply cannot guarantee that it won't happen.

[glockmail]

One thing that needs to be addressed in this thread: The man-beast marriage example/argument does not have to be analogous to gay marriage to be rational. The true nature of the argument is not that it is an analogy, but that once marriage is redefined, we are on a slippery slope with no end in sight. Those who favor the idea of gay marriage, would do well to consider that they are championing something that may go very, very wrong. You simply cannot guarantee that it won't happen. That's why we have Progressives, since they wish to progress away from a civilized society.

[BoogyMan]

Not the original, the accepted.

Accepted in one dictionary, my friend. One definition that is recent and not original as your initial attempt at rebuttal intimated.

When you must destroy the meaning and intent of an institution that has existed since the dawn of time in order to claim a right you have taken a misguided and tyrannical path.

Marriage is, has been, and hopefully always will be just as intended, one man and one woman. Aberrant psychology does not change that fact.

[Kathianne]

Not the original, the accepted.

Accepted where? Not in CA. Not anywhere that the definition has been sought to be put up to a vote of sorts.

[82Marine89]

"Personal opinions aside"???...LOL!...I can see how this would bother you considering all of your opinions actually came from the PC Handbook For Good Little Liberals who can't think for themselves.

Political Correctness has short-circuited your ability to think rationally...All you know is your standard programmed PC rebuttals...Take a deep breath and try to clear the PC in your head for just a few minutes.

{I'm sure this is a waste of my time...Years of PC indoctrination and programming cannot be undone in a few posts...Programmed people need to be deprogrammed by people they know, trust and even love if possible}

Marraige has always been a legal and religious union between a man and a woman, not only for the purpose of love and companionship, but for a partnership to procreate and love, care for and nurture their offspring into adulthood.

A man and a woman are two unique and seperate creatures, but of the same species that compliment each other and fit together like a bow and arrow, a hat and coat, a saddle and bridle, a lock and key, a hammer and nail.

Like these things, a man and woman each bring their own unique qualities and characteristics to a relationship...Two bows, two hats, two saddles, two locks and two hammers bring nothing.

A man brings the masculine physical strength, aggression, protection, sustainance and being the one who thinks with his head, the ability to make tough decisions when necessary.

A womans feminine qualities contributes baby food, nurtureing, compassion, a calming quality and a kind and gentle heart into decision making when a situation calls for the neccessity.

A relationship between two people of the same sex is based on nothing more than perversion and immorality...The only thing that brought them together in the first place was an unatural sexual attraction for the same sex which is not a grounds for marriage.

To legitimize the perversion of homosexuality by granting gays anything, belittles and damages the sanctity of marriage and the morality of the human race which is a necessary ingrediate for civilization...We are not savage mindless beasts.

Be advised, I will not respond to stupid questions like "how does it damage the sanctity of marriage"...If you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself then you are not smart enough for me to be wasting my time on.

Blah... Blah, blah, blah.... Politically correct. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... immoral. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... goat fucker. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... I can't respond logically. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... I'll just call you names.

[82Marine89]

I'm going to reply, but please no one get angry with me! It's just my opinion, and I have respect for all participants in this thread.

I truly believe that the queers already have equal rights. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, and neither can they, but they have the same right as me to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Marriage, although certified by our government, has ALWAYS been about a religious ceremony bonding a male and female in "holy matrimony". In that respect, granting same sex marriages will be giving them special rights.

They will tell you that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, yet only in the past few decades have you seen the "agenda" come to the surface and demands of equality. Where were they since the beginning of time when man and woman have been marrying since? Why, in the beginning of this agenda, were they pretty much only after civil unions and to be granted the benefits that married couples receive, and once that started making some headway they started on the new path of demanding to have marriage redefined to include them? It went from the closet, to recognition, to laws for their safety, to civil unions, and now to marriage. If we keep giving in to their demands of redefining things, where does it stop? Once you open the door of the redefinition of marriage, what do you then say to the proponents that come forth and demand equal rights for other wacky "loved ones"?

IMO, give them civil unions, give them every last benefit that a married couple receives, and call it a day.

** An aside note - nobody in our country feels our constitution should be messed with. They don't even want to mess with it to ban the burning of the American Flag, but it's ok to mess with it to grant rights to those with abnormal desires for love with the same sex?

Do you want to marry another man? You're looking at it through the eyes of a straight man. Try looking at it through their perspective. Marriage, to include homosexuals, is legal in Massachusetts and guess what? Armageddon has not occurred. I'll concede the safety issue because I don't believe in hate crimes. All crimes are equal and should be tried as such.

[82Marine89]

That's why we have Progressives, since they wish to progress away from a civilized society.

I'm not a Progressive. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Libertarian.

[glockmail]

I'm not a Progressive. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Libertarian.That's why pure libertarianism isn't a desirable position.

[HogTrash]

Blah... Blah, blah, blah.... Politically correct. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... immoral. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... goat fucker. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... I can't respond logically. Blah... Blah, blah, blah... I'll just call you names.It sounds as though you didn't get past the first couple lines sir.

If you would have read it all you might have found the "logic" you seek.

Or maybe not, considering your programming.

[Kathianne]

I'm not a Progressive. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Libertarian.

Libertarians would not be arguing for more laws, rather what I've said regarding civil unions.

[HogTrash]

Libertarians would not be arguing for more laws, rather what I've said regarding civil unions.It sounds as if this so called "Marine" has some strong liberal leanings that he has confused with libertarian.

[Abbey Marie]

Libertarians would not be arguing for more laws, rather what I've said regarding civil unions.

Good point, Kath.

[82Marine89]

Libertarians would not be arguing for more laws, rather what I've said regarding civil unions.

Actually...

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. (http://www.lp.org/platform)

[82Marine89]

It sounds as if this so called "Marine" has some strong liberal leanings that he has confused with libertarian.

So called Marine? You lost all credibility when you said I was of weak character then said you did things you were not proud of due to peer pressure. I am not ashamed of anything I have done in my life. Too bad you can't say the same.

[HogTrash]

Actually...

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. (http://www.lp.org/platform)This is not true libertarianism, but simply the perception of the people who wrote it, much the same as Aggy fantasizes about libertarian communism.

I reserve the right to discriminate against sick perversion and it's practitioners and no true libertarian ideology would deny me that inalienable right.

[82Marine89]

This is not true libertarianism, but simply the perception of the people who wrote it, much the same as Aggy fantasizes about libertarian communism.

It is straight from the Libertarian Party Platform.


I reserve the right to discriminate against sick perversion and it's practitioners and no true libertarian ideology would deny me that inalienable right.

And I reserve the right to call you a hypocrite.

[Kathianne]

Actually...

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. (http://www.lp.org/platform)

I condemn bigotry, which is why I say let the civil unions suffice. There's no need for additional laws that are to give extra rights to a group, minority or not.

[82Marine89]

I condemn bigotry, which is why I say let the civil unions suffice. There's no need for additional laws that are to give extra rights to a group, minority or not.

You're absolutely correct. No new laws, simply modify the existing ones.

[Jeff]

You're absolutely correct. No new laws, simply modify the existing ones.

When do ya stop modifying them, first ya modify for the homo's , what is next on the agenda?

[82Marine89]

When do ya stop modifying them, first ya modify for the homo's , what is next on the agenda?

You stop when you get them right. No agenda. At least not from me.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. :popcorn:



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

You stop when you get them right. No agenda. At least not from me.

Marriage simply does not include those who choose to preclude themselves from its application. Homosexuals do that very thing. Marriage is an institution between man and woman. There is no circumstance under which a redefinition will ever be acceptable to the majority of those who respect what marriage actually is.

[Jeff]

You stop when you get them right. No agenda. At least not from me.


The agenda comment wasn't meant to be directed at you Marine, just a general question

But seriously if we re write laws for the gays to have there way, whats next pedophiles, they also say they where born that way, so do we next modify the laws so grown men can marry children?

AS for the stopping when ya get them right I am sure pedophiles would feel that is right

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Well we gave into Civil Unions, now see where thats leading us.
2. If we give them Legal *Marriage*, for sure they will think of something more.
3. I think we learn our lesson form this, and find a way to turn the tables on this, before its too late.
4. This is nothing but destroying America as a Moral Nation.
5. Slipping us further into a cesspool.
6. I feel sorry for anyone who supports this, its a shame on you.
7. Wagging a finger in your face,......:poke:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Abbey Marie]

The agenda comment wasn't meant to be directed at you Marine, just a general question

But seriously if we re write laws for the gays to have there way, whats next pedophiles, they also say they where born that way, so do we next modify the laws so grown men can marry children?

AS for the stopping when ya get them right I am sure pedophiles would feel that is right

Tried to rep you. Well said.

[bullypulpit]

The agenda comment wasn't meant to be directed at you Marine, just a general question

But seriously if we re write laws for the gays to have there way, whats next pedophiles, they also say they where born that way, so do we next modify the laws so grown men can marry children?

AS for the stopping when ya get them right I am sure pedophiles would feel that is right

It's amazing how quickly y'all turn to pedophilia and beastiality when discussing the rights of two consenting adults, who happen to be of the same gender, who want to get married. Kinda makes me wonder what y'all are doin' in your free time.

But until you can prove demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, or society at large, caused by allowing same gender couples to marry...You got nothin'. Not that you ever have anyways.

[Jeff]

It's amazing how quickly y'all turn to pedophilia and beastiality when discussing the rights of two consenting adults, who happen to be of the same gender, who want to get married. Kinda makes me wonder what y'all are doin' in your free time.

But until you can prove demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, or society at large, caused by allowing same gender couples to marry...You got nothin'. Not that you ever have anyways.

Bully ya may want to re read the post, what I said was if ya alter laws to make gay marriages legal what would be next on the agenda ? Marine said ya stop when ya get them right, now I know even you would agree a lot of pedophiles use the excuse that they were born that way, as do gays, 50 years ago thinking of gays marrying was absurd now it will likely happen, so why is it so far fetched to believe our liberals wont in another 50 years feel for the poor pedophiles ? The laws are the laws and should not be altered .

[Missileman]

The laws are the laws and should not be altered .

Using that mentality women would still not be allowed to vote, we couldn't drink, and we'd up to our assholes in Tobys and Chicken Georges.

Besides...there's already a huge roadblock in the way of your slippery slope; neither children nor animals are allowed to enter into legal contracts.

[Jeff]

Using that mentality women would still not be allowed to vote, we couldn't drink, and we'd up to our assholes in Tobys and Chicken Georges.

That's a good point Mm but I think there is a big difference here, civil unions to the best of my knowledge gives gays the equality they original wanted, now they want marriage, marriage is between a man and woman , to reproduce , the reasoning for the gays wanting marriage now is just to mock the American way

[Missileman]

That's a good point Mm but I think there is a big difference here, civil unions to the best of my knowledge gives gays the equality they original wanted, now they want marriage, marriage is between a man and woman , to reproduce , the reasoning for the gays wanting marriage now is just to mock the American way

And as I understand it, they do not yet have federally-recognized civil unions in all states.

[Kathianne]

And as I understand it, they do not yet have federally-recognized civil unions in all states.

To the best of my knowledge a lawyer can set this up in any state. Does that remove all the blue laws, that may be used against gays? No. That should be done for in fact those blue laws could be used against anyone, married or not, straight or not.

[Missileman]

To the best of my knowledge a lawyer can set this up in any state. Does that remove all the blue laws, that may be used against gays? No. That should be done for in fact those blue laws could be used against anyone, married or not, straight or not.

I don't believe a gay couple can file a joint tax return for instance.

[Kathianne]

I don't believe a gay couple can file a joint tax return for instance.

That is something I discussed here or another locale. Truth is, the legislature should address this. What about common law marriages, can they?

[Missileman]

That is something I discussed here or another locale. Truth is, the legislature should address this. What about common law marriages, can they?

Don't know

[BoogyMan]

It's amazing how quickly y'all turn to pedophilia and beastiality when discussing the rights of two consenting adults, who happen to be of the same gender, who want to get married. Kinda makes me wonder what y'all are doin' in your free time.

But until you can prove demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, or society at large, caused by allowing same gender couples to marry...You got nothin'. Not that you ever have anyways.

When one has to change the meaning of marriage in order to justify activity born out of an aberrant psychological ideology, one has done harm to the institution. Man and woman are required for marriage, and hopefully there will never come a time when the liberal disease that is destroying the backbone of the country will be able to finish off marriage as they have done with every other institution they have laid ideologically driven hands to.

It is the liberals and homosexuals who, as you say, have nothing.

[bullypulpit]

Bully ya may want to re read the post, what I said was if ya alter laws to make gay marriages legal what would be next on the agenda ? Marine said ya stop when ya get them right, now I know even you would agree a lot of pedophiles use the excuse that they were born that way, as do gays, 50 years ago thinking of gays marrying was absurd now it will likely happen, so why is it so far fetched to believe our liberals wont in another 50 years feel for the poor pedophiles ? The laws are the laws and should not be altered .

What part of "consenting adults" in my post did you fail to understand? Children cannot give consent, and pedophilia IS a mental disorder and is so defined in the DSMV.

[bullypulpit]

When one has to change the meaning of marriage in order to justify activity born out of an aberrant psychological ideology, one has done harm to the institution. Man and woman are required for marriage, and hopefully there will never come a time when the liberal disease that is destroying the backbone of the country will be able to finish off marriage as they have done with every other institution they have laid ideologically driven hands to.

It is the liberals and homosexuals who, as you say, have nothing.

Homosexuality is not psychological abherrancy. In repeated peer reviewed studies, homosexual men and women are little different from their heterosexual counter-parts.

As for the rest of your rant...Your quip about "liberal disease" is nothing more than a talking point lifted from any of the RWN pundits spewing their BS on the airwaves each day. And as for finishing off marriage...? Well, straight folks have done a pretty good job of that on their own. Massachusetts, which allows same gender couples to marry, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country.

[BoogyMan]

Homosexuality is not psychological abherrancy. In repeated peer reviewed studies, homosexual men and women are little different from their heterosexual counter-parts.

As for the rest of your rant...Your quip about "liberal disease" is nothing more than a talking point lifted from any of the RWN pundits spewing their BS on the airwaves each day. And as for finishing off marriage...? Well, straight folks have done a pretty good job of that on their own. Massachusetts, which allows same gender couples to marry, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country.

Peer reviewed studies don't seem to hold the kind of sway that they used to since the global warming scam has shown them to be no more than a good ole' boys club for academia.

The divorce rate argument is truly dishonest of you since you probably have no problem with divorce and are simply looking for a talking point to prop up the last gasps of an argument you have already lost.

Marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, for life. That is how it should be.

The psychologically sick and the morally debauched will never change that simple fact.

[Abbey Marie]

What part of "consenting adults" in my post did you fail to understand? Children cannot give consent, and pedophilia IS a mental disorder and is so defined in the DSMV.

The age of consent can always be changed.

And wasn't homosexuality once also listed as a disorder?

[jimnyc]

What part of "consenting adults" in my post did you fail to understand? Children cannot give consent, and pedophilia IS a mental disorder and is so defined in the DSMV.

The pro-homosexual lobby has made the concept of two consenting adults the cornerstone of their argument to legitimize homosexual behavior. The argument says that adults may consent to perverse behavior such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. without consequences.

Whether we are discussing Homosexuality, occasional homosexuality (as is the case in many false relationships), or an expensive Oprah-type shakeup, perversion is perversion! Oprah’s financial condition does not make her life-style godly.

The two consenting adults debate point is bogus!

Let’s look at the “two consenting adults” theory.

Suppose that two consenting adults decided that one of the consenting adults should shoot the other in the head. That would result in murder.

Suppose the two consenting adults decide to drive their car at a speed of 100 miles per hour down a freeway. The policeman or woman who pulls them over and gives the driver a ticket does not care if they were consenting adults.

Suppose further that there were no other cars on that freeway at the time of their consenting action. That would not change the danger nor does it change the resultant ticket. Their consenting action was against the law.

It does not matter how “nice” the two consenting adults are. The only thing that matters is, did they deviate from acceptable norm of social behavior.

The two consenting adult debate point is bogus!

If you legalize two consenting adults indecent behavior, what is to prevent the legalization of three or four consenting adults?

At that point, we are no longer debating the perversion. Instead, we are now just discussing the number of adults permitted to join in the legalized perversion.

Redefining marriage does not make same-sex marriage less perverse!

Those who do not engage in such perversion, but attempt to justify the perversion are themselves perverse. If your child is perverse, it is not a loving act to attempt to justify their perversions.

http://www.ais-gwd.com/~cdevans/two.htm

[jimnyc]

The age of consent can always be changed.

And wasn't homosexuality once also listed as a disorder?

Yes, it was, until the liberal agenda had it removed. The queers and their supporters will claim that they were born that way, admitting that they were born abnormal, but fall back on that removal to claim it's somehow now normal.

[Missileman]

The pro-homosexual lobby has made the concept of two consenting adults the cornerstone of their argument to legitimize homosexual behavior. The argument says that adults may consent to perverse behavior such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. without consequences.

Whether we are discussing Homosexuality, occasional homosexuality (as is the case in many false relationships), or an expensive Oprah-type shakeup, perversion is perversion! Oprah’s financial condition does not make her life-style godly.

The two consenting adults debate point is bogus!

Let’s look at the “two consenting adults” theory.

Suppose that two consenting adults decided that one of the consenting adults should shoot the other in the head. That would result in murder.

Suppose the two consenting adults decide to drive their car at a speed of 100 miles per hour down a freeway. The policeman or woman who pulls them over and gives the driver a ticket does not care if they were consenting adults.

Suppose further that there were no other cars on that freeway at the time of their consenting action. That would not change the danger nor does it change the resultant ticket. Their consenting action was against the law.

It does not matter how “nice” the two consenting adults are. The only thing that matters is, did they deviate from acceptable norm of social behavior.

The two consenting adult debate point is bogus!

If you legalize two consenting adults indecent behavior, what is to prevent the legalization of three or four consenting adults?

At that point, we are no longer debating the perversion. Instead, we are now just discussing the number of adults permitted to join in the legalized perversion.

Redefining marriage does not make same-sex marriage less perverse!

Those who do not engage in such perversion, but attempt to justify the perversion are themselves perverse. If your child is perverse, it is not a loving act to attempt to justify their perversions.

http://www.ais-gwd.com/~cdevans/two.htm

I never figured you for the "totally fucking stupid" argument Jimmy. No one can give another person permission to commit a crime under the concept of 2 consenting adults.

[jimnyc]

Imagine this scenario:

2 couples are friendly with one another. They are consenting adults, so they sometimes swap partners for sex. They all decide they love one another so they want to all get married. One woman will marry one of the men, then she'll marry the other man, then she'll marry the other woman - and the rest will follow suit. They are all consenting adults.

You guys supporting this consenting adults theory would support this? And don't tell me about how the law doesn't allow for multiple marriages, as many have already shot down the law theory and said things should be changed to support loving couples and they shouldn't be denied equal rights.

[jimnyc]

I never figured you for the "totally fucking stupid" argument Jimmy. No one can give another person permission to commit a crime under the concept of 2 consenting adults.

And I never figured you for a fucking asshole who resorts to immediate namecalling. I will not further a debate with you as a result.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

[jimnyc]

Furthermore, dipshit, you'll see a LINK at the bottom of what I posted. But it's easier to attack the messenger than the credible argument that doesn't support the filth you support.

[Agnapostate]

That link was one of the stupidest things I've ever had a misfortune to see.

The "murder" example involves allocide, suicide by proxy. I can't think of an ethical objection to it. Speed limits are aimed at the purpose of minimizing injuries and fatalities caused by automobile accidents. Unless there is some demonstrably parallel aim of prohibition of homosexual marriage (abstract weeping about our Lord doesn't work), there's no basis for comparison. What does "[deviation] from acceptable norm of social behavior" mean? It sounds like a logical fallacy, considering the fact that common societal norms might be divergent from ethical standards. Moreover, we are warned of the evils of polyamory without any elaboration as to the ethical wrongness involved. Marriage is a legal contract; if any group of sufficiently competent people wished to enter into some kind of legal/financial arrangement based upon polyamorous lifestylees, where's the actual ethical objection?

Try something other than petty theocratic propaganda. Christianity itself has no clear position on marriage, considering the traditional practice of bigamy by Old Testament figures revered as prophets of the old faith and the distinctly hierarchical nature of marriage in the religious tradition.

[jimnyc]

That link was one of the stupidest things I've ever had a misfortune to see.

Click on your own username. Then on the far right side, click on "show all statistics". The click on show all posts. You'll find about 780 posts by a retard whining about how his just as retarded ancestors were robbed. Not only will you find these posts more ridiculous than what you found at the above link, but you'll find comedy value in them as the rest of us have.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. :popcorn:


2. Two consenting perverted adults are not more powerful than marriage as a religious confirmation to bind two people together as one.
3. Even if its one or thousands, of consenting adult perverts.
4. Just one more reason Americas better days are behind us.
5. The perverted minorities, muck up this Great Nation, and the good people sit by allowing it to happen, having liberal judges throw America into a cesspool.
6. America is just not worth fighting for anymore, so it seems to CWN.
7. Its a shit hole.
8. If I am wrong, some one prove it to me.
9. I wish I were wrong, but face it, its all true.


10.:popcorn:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[glockmail]

What part of "consenting adults" in my post did you fail to understand? Children cannot give consent, and pedophilia IS a mental disorder and is so defined in the DSMV. Did you check with Chimpy Obama before you posted this? :poke:

[glockmail]

I don't believe a gay couple can file a joint tax return for instance.Change the tax code.

[bullypulpit]

Peer reviewed studies don't seem to hold the kind of sway that they used to since the global warming scam has shown them to be no more than a good ole' boys club for academia.

The divorce rate argument is truly dishonest of you since you probably have no problem with divorce and are simply looking for a talking point to prop up the last gasps of an argument you have already lost.

Marriage: 1 man, 1 woman, for life. That is how it should be.

The psychologically sick and the morally debauched will never change that simple fact.

So, you're all for banning divorce?

As for the divorce rate argument...It is valid and has the facts to support it, which none of your arguments to this point have. All you and your fellow travelers present is argument rooted in nothing more than your own baseless prejudices.

And peer-reviewed studies ARE the gold standard by which the validity of scientific claims are validated or not. And really bad attempt at changing the subject.

[BoogyMan]

So, you're all for banning divorce?

As for the divorce rate argument...It is valid and has the facts to support it, which none of your arguments to this point have. All you and your fellow travelers present is argument rooted in nothing more than your own baseless prejudices.

And peer-reviewed studies ARE the gold standard by which the validity of scientific claims are validated or not. And really bad attempt at changing the subject.

What I am for is husband and wife marriage as it should be, and for those marriages being treated with the respect and reverence that the institution deserves. Man has tried his best to destroy the institution of marriage without the debauchery of homosexuality being tossed into the mix.

I am NOT for allowing the modern disease that is liberalism to redefine the institution of marriage to fit a clearly aberrant psychology.

I was not changing the subject, I was pointing to the FACT that the global warming debacle has pointed out the fallacy of the unassailability of peer review, anyone with a fully functional set of frontal lobes would have clocked that without the need for further definition.

[glockmail]

So, you're all for banning divorce?

As for the divorce rate argument...It is valid and has the facts to support it, which none of your arguments to this point have. All you and your fellow travelers present is argument rooted in nothing more than your own baseless prejudices.

And peer-reviewed studies ARE the gold standard by which the validity of scientific claims are validated or not. And really bad attempt at changing the subject. Was Chimpy Obama peer reviewed?

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, it was, until the liberal agenda had it removed. The queers and their supporters will claim that they were born that way, admitting that they were born abnormal, but fall back on that removal to claim it's somehow now normal.

And so- there is no reason to think that any and all other perversions won't someday also be acceptable. This argument that gay marriage won't lead to the legalization of other aberrations and debaucheries is actually illogical if one looks at history.

[Missileman]

And I never figured you for a fucking asshole who resorts to immediate namecalling. I will not further a debate with you as a result.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Kindly point to where I called you a name. I said that your argument is stupid. Try answering the point rather than trying to deflect with an unfounded accusation. Explain how in the real world (not in your fantasy) that one person can tell another to break the law and it's okie dokie.

[Missileman]

Yes, it was, until the liberal agenda had it removed. The queers and their supporters will claim that they were born that way, admitting that they were born abnormal, but fall back on that removal to claim it's somehow now normal.

And doctors use to believe that malaria resulted from swamp gas. I suppose some liberal bastards had that updated too.

[Agnapostate]

Click on your own username. Then on the far right side, click on "show all statistics". The click on show all posts. You'll find about 780 posts by a retard whining about how his just as retarded ancestors were robbed. Not only will you find these posts more ridiculous than what you found at the above link, but you'll find comedy value in them as the rest of us have.

Uder, I don't know if your leiderhosen are cutting off the circulation to your brain, but most people at least pretend to try some kind of rebuttal. But you...damn, you tripped more idiotically than usual this time. :lol:

[jimnyc]

but most people at least pretend to try some kind of rebuttal.

Rebuttal? There's a reason I don't engage you in debates in case you haven't noticed. I'd rather just laugh at you. I try not to put any serious time into trolls.

[Agnapostate]

There's a reason I don't engage you in debates

I'm aware. It's related to your incompetence.

[bullypulpit]

What I am for is husband and wife marriage as it should be, and for those marriages being treated with the respect and reverence that the institution deserves. Man has tried his best to destroy the institution of marriage without the debauchery of homosexuality being tossed into the mix.

I am NOT for allowing the modern disease that is liberalism to redefine the institution of marriage to fit a clearly aberrant psychology.

I was not changing the subject, I was pointing to the FACT that the global warming debacle has pointed out the fallacy of the unassailability of peer review, anyone with a fully functional set of frontal lobes would have clocked that without the need for further definition.

Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah. Your rants read more like those of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Inbred Freaks with every reading. Oh, an ther is no global warming debacle. Get over it.

[jimnyc]

I'm aware. It's related to your incompetence.

Yes, my ability to avoid trolls is in direct correlation to my incompetence. I will work harder and strive to be more like yourself. Maybe someday down the road I can type fancy words and still make it readily apparent that I am a troll.

[glockmail]

Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah. Your rants read more like those of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Inbred Freaks with every reading. Oh, an ther is no global warming debacle. Get over it. Fess up, Chimpy Obama told you to say that. :lol:

[BoogyMan]

Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah. Your rants read more like those of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Inbred Freaks with every reading. Oh, an ther is no global warming debacle. Get over it.

You cannot rebut the commentary so you drag in the typical left-wing horse hockey about anyone who does not approve of the homosexual agenda being a hater?

What a complete moron.

When you can hold your own in a discussion with someone who actually can use the breadth of the english language and does not need the likes of HuffPo and Think Progress to determine a stand, come back and see me.

What a mental midget. Not one word of what I have posted shows hatred or fear of homosexuals.

Ignoring the dishonesty in the AGW peer process will not make your argument either.

[HogTrash]

It is straight from the Libertarian Party Platform.I was a card carrying libertarian for 14 years...I have donated time and money, attended meetings and met Harry Brown.

I know libertarian...The Libertarian Party Platform is debatable as to it's adherance to true libertarianism.

The open borders policy for example...How can the LP claim that people flooding across our borders does not affect or infringe on the rights of Americans.

On the subject of homosexuality...How can the LP claim that sick perversion does not negatively affect any society that grants it legitamacy?

I have already seen a definate decline in morality with the acceptance of perversion in America.

And I reserve the right to call you a hypocrite.Me, a "hypocrite"???...On what do you base your claim?

[jimnyc]

You cannot rebut the commentary so you drag in the typical left-wing horse hockey about anyone who does not approve of the homosexual agenda being a hater?

This brings a thought to my mind....

The left and queer supporters like to go to the extreme and label those of us that are against the abnormality as "homophobes".

Would it make sense then that those who choose to support queers should be labeled as queers themselves?

I've always been curious as to why these wackjobs think we fear the queers just because we are against their behavior. I guess I'm also a murdererphobe, pedephilephobe, terroristphobe, wifebeaterphobe & thiefphobe.

[glockmail]

Its a standard lib-tard tactic to accuse you of something odd and put you on the defensive while deflecting the factual argument.

[HogTrash]

"Homophobe" is the standard PC programmed response to any perceived attack upon the lefts beloved gay community.

[glockmail]

Libtards love queers because their lifestyle is an unnatural condition that has a genetic dead end and denigrates society at the same time.

[Agnapostate]

The sentiments expressed here do line up rather neatly with the bigoted clauses of the social authoritarian outlook. As written by the linguist George Lakoff in his Moral Politics on the subject of the social rightist's "Moral Order":


Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:

The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.

The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.

The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born Americans rank above immigrants.

The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.

The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.

[...]

It is important to bear in minds that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.

According to the Moral Order metaphor, a just situation obtains when the Moral Order hierarchy is met in the world, that is, when men do have moral authority and power over women, when parents do have moral authority and power over their children, when human beings do have moral authority and power over nature, and so on. The bigoted clauses include whites having moral authority and power over nonwhites, and so on. In short, the Moral Order is the conceptual mechanism by which assumptions of superiority - and the moral standing of that superiority - are expressed.

Rather distasteful.

[BoogyMan]

The standard issue liberal turned out by ThinkProgress, HuffPo, Common Dreams, KOS, etc cannot fathom the idea that anyone might not agree with their agrandisation of the homosexual agenda. Liberals have been calling anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda any number of derogatory terms for quite some time now and it simply evidences the fact that they have lost another argument when they play that card.

[jimnyc]

The sentiments expressed here do line up rather neatly with the bigoted clauses of the social authoritarian outlook. As written by the linguist George Lakoff in his Moral Politics on the subject of the social rightist's "Moral Order":


Rather distasteful.

Why do you think anyone would give a crap what that shithead wrote?

And you know what? Heterosexuals DO rank above the queers. We were not the ones who chose to live a life of perversion, or born with an abnormality, depending on which liberal yoke you ask.

And you're right, thinking that the queers are in any way equal to us normal people IS distasteful.

[Agnapostate]

Why do you think anyone would give a crap what that shithead wrote?

Its obvious accuracy, as indicated by your belligerent reaction without actual rejoinder to his commentary.

[jimnyc]

Its obvious accuracy, as indicated by your belligerent reaction without actual rejoinder to his commentary.

It has nothing to do with accuracy, it's simply one mans opinion and no more accurate than you and I posting our opinions here. Call him up and have him post here, otherwise I don't give a rats ass what he has to say.

[Agnapostate]

It has nothing to do with accuracy

If you'd perceived it as inaccurate, you would have made one of your (admittedly futile) attempts at refutation. You didn't perceive it as inaccurate; you simply didn't care for the ugliness of the truth.

[jimnyc]

If you'd perceived it as inaccurate, you would have made one of your (admittedly futile) attempts at refutation. You didn't perceive it as inaccurate; you simply didn't care for the ugliness of the truth.

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Look at post #174, I do believe I did refute the shitheads lame ramblings. Except his was opinion while mine is based in fact.

[glockmail]

Are there any queer injuns?

[Agnapostate]

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Look at post #174, I do believe I did refute the shitheads lame ramblings. Except his was opinion while mine is based in fact.

The quality of crack on the East Coast is clearly worse than ours if that's what you think.


Are there any queer injuns?

I'd pegged you as a Village People groupie. Does that count?

[jimnyc]

The quality of crack on the East Coast is clearly worse than ours if that's what you think.

I wouldn't know anything about the crack scene. The fact that you do sure as hell explains a lot though. Get hopped up and enjoy yourself, we appreciate it as I've stated before, you're nothing more than comedic relief to us.

[glockmail]

...

I'd pegged you as a Village People groupie. Does that count? No. Your baseless opinions are meaningless.

[HogTrash]

Speaking of Village People, what happened to our Village Marine?

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1.:popcorn:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[82Marine89]

Speaking of Village People, what happened to our Village Marine?

Blow me bitch.

Actually, Fuck You.

[82Marine89]

That is something I discussed here or another locale. Truth is, the legislature should address this. What about common law marriages, can they?

No, they can't in most states. I believe Massachusetts is the only one.

[82Marine89]

Why do you think anyone would give a crap what that shithead wrote?

And you know what? Heterosexuals DO rank above the queers. We were not the ones who chose to live a life of perversion, or born with an abnormality, depending on which liberal yoke you ask.

And you're right, thinking that the queers are in any way equal to us normal people IS distasteful.

All people are equal unless they are convicted of a crime.

[Jeff]

What part of "consenting adults" in my post did you fail to understand? Children cannot give consent, and pedophilia IS a mental disorder and is so defined in the DSMV.

Sorry for the delay Bully but I have been working, and I see there is no need for me to reply, all points have been debated, but if the laws can be changed for fags, why not for pedophiles ? And again I don't except a reply I see this point has been debated, just didn't want ya to think I did the hit and run as some do so well, lol, you know what I mean, :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Blow me bitch.

Actually, Fuck You.

I know this is the cage, but please think about vulgarity. All of you can post better than this? :dunno:

[82Marine89]

I know this is the cage, but please think about vulgarity. All of you can post better than this? :dunno:

You're right I can, but when Hogwarts refuses to debate and only calls names or spews the same party line rhetoric, I return the favor.

[jimnyc]

All people are equal unless they are convicted of a crime.

So you consider yourself equal to the people who involve themselves in 'scat' daily? (look it up if you so desire, it's filth). Equal to the terrorists who have never been captured and never convicted in a court of law? Equal to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at the funerals of our Soldiers and proclaim they deserve what they got? You're an equal to the man who refuses to look for work and spends his welfare on alcohol? Equal to that same man who walks away from his family as they suffer because he won't help care for them? Equal to parents who raise their children from birth to hate and be racist? Equal to the guys who are afforded a great education but would rather skip out as much as they can and end up with IQ's near retardation level? You're an equal to the men who refuse to let their wives out in public, refuse to let them vote and beat them if they aren't subservient to them? (yep, legal, so no crime where they do this).

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure some research would uncover a TON more undesirables. I'm sorry, but everyone is NOT equal. Maybe the minute they enter a courtroom they should be "considered" equal, and I would agree that we are all "born" equally - but man and woman grow up into adults and we all choose different paths. Some of those actions, and actions they fail/refuse to do, make them less of a "human" than the rest of us.

But hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep if you consider yourself on the same plane as those I have listed thus far.

[Kathianne]

You're right I can, but when Hogwarts refuses to debate and only calls names or spews the same party line rhetoric, I return the favor.

You certainly weren't the only one, just try to stay above the flames, if you are able. Thanks. All of us can lose it with flames, I've been know to do so once or twice. ;) STOP LAUGHING, YOUSE!

[jimnyc]

You certainly weren't the only one, just try to stay above the flames, if you are able. Thanks. All of us can lose it with flames, I've been know to do so once or twice. ;) STOP LAUGHING, YOUSE!

Bite me, ******!

(this is Jeff, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

[82Marine89]

So you consider yourself equal to the people who involve themselves in 'scat' daily? (look it up if you so desire, it's filth). Equal to the terrorists who have never been captured and never convicted in a court of law? Equal to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at the funerals of our Soldiers and proclaim they deserve what they got? You're an equal to the man who refuses to look for work and spends his welfare on alcohol? Equal to that same man who walks away from his family as they suffer because he won't help care for them? Equal to parents who raise their children from birth to hate and be racist? Equal to the guys who are afforded a great education but would rather skip out as much as they can and end up with IQ's near retardation level? You're an equal to the men who refuse to let their wives out in public, refuse to let them vote and beat them if they aren't subservient to them? (yep, legal, so no crime where they do this).

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure some research would uncover a TON more undesirables. I'm sorry, but everyone is NOT equal. Maybe the minute they enter a courtroom they should be "considered" equal, and I would agree that we are all "born" equally - but man and woman grow up into adults and we all choose different paths. Some of those actions, and actions they fail/refuse to do, make them less of a "human" than the rest of us.

But hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep if you consider yourself on the same plane as those I have listed thus far.

I know it sucks Jimmy, but for all those wrongs you mentioned the Constitution protects American citizens equally.

[Jeff]

Bite me, ******!

(this is Jeff, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Kat knows better than that, I am a gentleman I would of said please bite me :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I know it sucks Jimmy, but for all those wrongs you mentioned the Constitution protects American citizens equally.

The discussion had nothing to do with equality under the Constitution. You replied to my post where I was saying that in fact some people are superior to others, as in they "are not equal". In fact, until now, I don't think the word Constitution was mentioned. Some people can be more superior to others, whether that be via intelligence, morals, strength, compassion... and yet be protected equally via our Constitution.

I wrote that some do rank higher than others and you replied that all were equal unless convicted of a crime. I think you were then confused as to what exactly was being discussed, specifically the article that Ag quoted from.

[jimnyc]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Kat knows better than that, I am a gentleman I would of said please bite me :laugh2:

Fuck off, Jeff!

(This is Kathianne, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

[Jeff]

Fuck off, Jeff!

(This is Kathianne, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

Kat I know I know this is the cage, but please think about vulgarity.I know you can post better than this? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[82Marine89]

The discussion had nothing to do with equality under the Constitution. You replied to my post where I was saying that in fact some people are superior to others, as in they "are not equal". In fact, until now, I don't think the word Constitution was mentioned. Some people can be more superior to others, whether that be via intelligence, morals, strength, compassion... and yet be protected equally via our Constitution.

I wrote that some do rank higher than others and you replied that all were equal unless convicted of a crime. I think you were then confused as to what exactly was being discussed, specifically the article that Ag quoted from.

I've mentioned the Constitution from the start of my activity in this thread. BTW, who cares about Ag?

[Jeff]

I've mentioned the Constitution from the start of my activity in this thread. BTW, who cares about Ag?

Ag is protected by the constitution now :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I've mentioned the Constitution from the start of my activity in this thread. BTW, who cares about Ag?

My bad, yes you did. And we're in total agreement about the "indigenous". :)

[Kathianne]

Fuck off, Jeff!

(This is Kathianne, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Others/bubble-bath-071.gif

Just wait until I get out!

Jeff, you know better! :laugh2: Jim has taken over my personality! We'll see how that works for him. ;) :coffee:

[Kathianne]

Bite me, ******!

(this is Jeff, I am logged into Jim's account) :coffee:

Oh Jeff, what an invite! :laugh2::laugh2:

[Jeff]

Oh Jeff, what an invite! :laugh2::laugh2:

he did open a big window for me didn't he, :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Others/bubble-bath-071.gif

Just wait until I get out!

Jeff, you know better! :laugh2: Jim has taken over my personality! We'll see how that works for him. ;) :coffee:

Love the little bathing avatar. :thumb:

[Kathianne]

Love the little bathing avatar. :thumb:

LOL! Reading the newspaper, how true dat! I think Jim got skeered that I was going to get soap in his eyes this am!