The new hatemongers

Conservative Republicans aren't the only problem in this country. The real and present problems are the criminal element in government, media and the entertainment business. That's where the money and power reside. They are good at distracting us. That's why they pass this gay marriage law. They want us to be preoccupied with stupid stuff so they can concentrate on other more important issues, or should I say nefarious ones.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I happen to agree with you on most of these points, you're correct, it's not just the right's fault, the left is equally to blame. Maybe if the right would loosen up and the left tighten up they could get some things fixed. This issue here, that's really in the grand scheme of things, proves that. Both sides are fighting tooth and nail over a minor thing when all that energy could be used to really fix the bigger issues of this nation, but they happy to keep chopping at the one little tree and ignore the forest.

Once again, I have no intentions of outing your and your partner. So let it go.

What moral objections to who they fuck? You do a lot of reading of things that are not there. No, my problem is with the way they comport themselves in public and their political, fascist movement. I think these photos of you and your friends....argghhh, sorry about that. I think these photos make a strong case but I can get more. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Sad poor pitiful JD, once again you resort to nothing but 9th grade insults and taunts in the hopes I'll bite that apple, stray from the issue and play your game. You sir are a prime example of what I just pointed out to Jim. It's clear you have no point that you can soundly make in this which is truly sad. Now to the direct point of your OP:

Is it right that some gay men spat on a Catholic priest.......... absolutely not it's something that hurts their cause more than it helps. But how many times have we seen things like this happen in highly emotion issues, again not saying it's right, just saying it's human.
Now the flip side, just how long has the Catholic church metaphorically spat on gays and lesbian every chance they have gotten........... this is the same church that has for decades covered up for the criminal transgressions of their priests yet has the gall to condemn gays and lesbians for their legal life style.

I do believe the bible says:
"Judge not lest ye be judged" Matthew 7:1
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" Mark 12:31
Funny that religion does not practice that which it claims to preach!

[QUOTE=novacain;1056893147]I happen to agree with you on most of these points, you're correct, it's not just the right's fault, the left is equally to blame. Maybe if the right would loosen up and the left tighten up they could get some things fixed. This issue here, that's really in the grand scheme of things, proves that. Both sides are fighting tooth and nail over a minor thing when all that energy could be used to really fix the bigger issues of this nation, but they happy to keep chopping at the one little tree and ignore the forest.




This is what truly amazes me. The united States has a population of 330 million people there is only an estimated 2% or 6.6 million people who identify themselves with the LGBT community. How can such a small percentage of the population have such an impact on society as to change a law and discard a traditional value system? What's even more interesting it has nothing to do with race or religious beliefs but rather sexual practices and life style. Just look at videos of the parade footage. Just observe the way these people behave, the costumes they wear and the banners and signs they wave. I even saw children walking in the parades in the midst of these adults acting what I consider pretty dam nasty. As far as the right and left working together to get things done they are. Unfortunately it's matters like this is what they consider "getting things done". Sad but true.

Jim

The degradation of our society, is NOT a little thing...

WHOSE flag is it again, assup? Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't know WHO created the graphic, but it sure gets you're knickers in a twist, Junior.

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn!

I don't know WHO created the graphic, but it sure gets you're knickers in a twist, Junior.

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You love those gay guys and everything they stand for, don't you?

You love those gay guys and everything they stand for, don't you? Originally Posted by DSK

No, it's not that assup likes gay guys. It's because he really hates conservative straight white Americans. Anything that might remotely cause them concern he considers to be a victory for liberals. To Liberals conservatives are the enemy because they are constantly standing in the way of the hideous ideals that liberals are always trying to promote.

Jim

This is what truly amazes me. The united States has a population of 330 million people there is only an estimated 2% or 6.6 million people who identify themselves with the LGBT community. How can such a small percentage of the population have such an impact on society as to change a law and discard a traditional value system? What's even more interesting it has nothing to do with race or religious beliefs but rather sexual practices and life style. Just look at videos of the parade footage. Just observe the way these people behave, the costumes they wear and the banners and signs they wave. I even saw children walking in the parades in the midst of these adults acting what I consider pretty dam nasty. As far as the right and left working together to get things done they are. Unfortunately it's matters like this is what they consider "getting things done". Sad but true.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

And that's the exact key here to all of this Jim......... when and where have you ever been told: "Sorry no you can't do/have that cause you are heterosexual"
It's never happened, you know it's never happened, so just exactly why should it happen to them. No one is saying you have to like their life style or even practice it, all that's being said is they deserve the exact same rights as you. This was something that NEVER should have been an issue ever, cause there never was, is or has been a legal reason to deny them marriage. Sure there are tons of moral, biblical and philosophical reasons that can be argued for or against................. but zero legal reason. The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage has zero basis here, as that doctrine has never been held to. The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage was one man, one woman, for LIFE............. sorry but with a divorce rate in the US of 30% or higher, it completely negates that assumed, traditional meaning. Up until only about a decade ago did that assumed, "traditional" meaning have any legal definition, funny how that's right about the same time this became an issue ain't it. If it's proven that it's not for life as stated and changed to accept that then how can you also hold it to only one man, one woman. Neither the logic nor the legal standing can be made. Before this issue ever really came up, when you said marriage the idea that most would have is............ a loving committed couple....... gender never really factored into it, until gays and lesbians decided they too wanted to marry, they fit the mold do they not.......... loving committed couples.

In a country founded on freedom, we should be at the forefront of rational legal rights and freedoms.......... not pulling up the rear holding on to old beliefs and doctrines based only in fear and prejudice.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness............. gay marriage seems to fall right in line if that's a doctrine we really hold dear!

And that's the exact key here to all of this Jim......... when and where have you ever been told: "Sorry no you can't do/have that cause you are heterosexual"
It's never happened, you know it's never happened, so just exactly why should it happen to them. No one is saying you have to like their life style or even practice it, all that's being said is they deserve the exact same rights as you. This was something that NEVER should have been an issue ever, cause there never was, is or has been a legal reason to deny them marriage. Sure there are tons of moral, biblical and philosophical reasons that can be argued for or against................. but zero legal reason. The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage has zero basis here, as that doctrine has never been held to. The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage was one man, one woman, for LIFE............. sorry but with a divorce rate in the US of 30% or higher, it completely negates that assumed, traditional meaning. Up until only about a decade ago did that assumed, "traditional" meaning have any legal definition, funny how that's right about the same time this became an issue ain't it. If it's proven that it's not for life as stated and changed to accept that then how can you also hold it to only one man, one woman. Neither the logic nor the legal standing can be made. Before this issue ever really came up, when you said marriage the idea that most would have is............ a loving committed couple....... gender never really factored into it, until gays and lesbians decided they too wanted to marry, they fit the mold do they not.......... loving committed couples.

In a country founded on freedom, we should be at the forefront of rational legal rights and freedoms.......... not pulling up the rear holding on to old beliefs and doctrines based only in fear and prejudice.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness............. gay marriage seems to fall right in line if that's a doctrine we really hold dear! Originally Posted by novacain

Nobody cared about gay marriage 50 years ago because the idea was so absurd virtually no one ever considered it. Even psychologists considered homosexuality deviant. It shouldn't be a right because marriage was always considered between a man and a woman. It is like saying I have equal rights to go in to the ballet changing room where the women get naked. Why can't I go in there? It is considered absurd, but you could make a rights case to not segregate public facilities by sex.

The ironic thing is you liberals will let in enough Muslims they might start tossing you fags off buildings - I'm not going to stop them.

... The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage has zero basis here, as that doctrine has never been held to. The assumed, traditional meaning of marriage was one man, one woman, for LIFE............. sorry but with a divorce rate in the US of 30% or higher, it completely negates that assumed, traditional meaning.... Originally Posted by novacain

Your logic escapes me. So a 30% divorce rate "completely negates" the traditional definition of marriage? Who made that rule? What if the rate was only 10%? Would you argue differently? And if the rate miraculously fell to zero, would you oppose same-sex marriage?

Divorce is as old as marriage. When the first divorce occurred, we didn't say oops, that makes it ok for gay people to marry. Centuries of divorce didn't repudiate the traditional meaning of marriage. Why would it now?

.

He sure seems to have put a lot of effort into the choice of pic's there............. makes one wonder don't it. Originally Posted by novacain

I bet he spent hours poring over the most appropriate ones from his collection to post up....

Give it a rest admiral, you are truly showing your ass....

Finding pics like that doesn't take any effort. That's what gays are all about. They are vulgar, arrogant, self absorbed social misfits, and they are proud of it too. Their cry for marriage equality wasn't worth entertaining. They have no respect for the institution of marriage nor for married heterosexuals. They consider them oppressors. They should have stayed in the closet they belong.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Man, this is such a ridiculous post from you. Most gays are not vulgar, arrogant or self-absorbed, at least not in any sort of way that separates them from heterosexuals. I'm sorry, but you were logged on to a whore board that has a girl shoving a dildo into her cooch up in the right hand corner of the screen over and over....and you typed this bullshit? Please.

I'm sorry, but you were logged on to a whore board that has a girl shoving a dildo into her cooch up in the right hand corner of the screen over and over.... Originally Posted by timpage

Don't make it personal.

Leave JD's sister out of this.

Actually Breitbart collected the photos for me and I didn't even use them all. So Timmie and EVA are safe....for now. Probably shouldn't wear name tags guys when you march...uh, mince.

Don't make it personal.

Leave JD's sister out of this. Originally Posted by ExNYer

A girl's gotta eat....

Your logic escapes me. So a 30% divorce rate "completely negates" the traditional definition of marriage? Who made that rule? What if the rate was only 10%? Would you argue differently? And if the rate miraculously fell to zero, would you oppose same-sex marriage?

Divorce is as old as marriage. When the first divorce occurred, we didn't say oops, that makes it ok for gay people to marry. Centuries of divorce didn't repudiate the traditional meaning of marriage. Why would it now?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

The original "traditional" meaning of marriage included it being "for life", it was then adjusted due to divorce. So if it can be adjusted for that, a change that came about through changes in society, then what's the issue with it now again being adjusted for this change in society. Do you see the logic now, no one said shit when it changed before but this change, this change just can not be allowed to happen, even though this a change due to the change in society same as before....... where's the difference.
As you stated: "Centuries of divorce didn't repudiate the traditional meaning of marriage.", so if that's true, then how does allowing gays to marry legally change anything but the wording. Allowing it changes nothing about the real core value and meaning of marriage "the union of a loving committed couple", it adjusts it to include a segment of people not currently included.