Marriage is a constitutional right and not for the purpose of procreation

Romney's going to lose because there's no votes to be swayed in here. Who's wastig all of their time, oh, ye of the 5,000 threads??

Do you guys want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

This is so tranparent and you guys are buying into this. Why do gay people want to get "married"? They say that it is because of benefits, inheritance, hospital policies, etc. Can they have that with the proper legislation and civil unions like in Germany? Yes So why aren't they happy then, why persist? Because this is all about politics and a wedge issue. Politics!!! Don't have a job, no health insurance, it must be because you're gay and the GOP hates you. Vote for Obama! What kind of an idiot buys into this? Look around, we see some of them right here.

Ever hear of give em an inch and they'll take a mile. In 1971 the newly minted EPA got DDT banned and it was celebrated as the first "political" victory. Not a health win but a political win. There was no conclusive evidence and the judge decided in favor of the DDT manufacturers but the EPA WON! They didn't stop there. No, they wanted more until they want to control farm dust.

The people have spoken in over 30 states, no gay marriage. Why do the fascists on this site (and yes, you are fascists if you think the government should control this) reject the voice of the people? Why are you so backwards and hard hearted that you ignore what the most important people in this country want. I suppose I have to point out to some that the most important people are the voters and not Hollywood.

Sexyeccentric1

Do you have any of your own thoughts on the matter or are you just going to continue to plagiarize
.

Sexyeccentric1

Do you have any of your own thoughts on the matter or are you just going to continue to plagiarize
. Originally Posted by Boltfan

According to the normal modus operandi around here, we all post articles without inferring that they are our own. That is a major part of the definition you use to accuse Sexyeccentric1 of "plagiarism".

Is that you on the FUCKING surfboard in your avatar, ASSWIPE or is that a PLAGIARIZED picture of Junior on a surfboard? I'd bet a thousand you didn't TAKE Junior's photograph while he was surfing to use years later as your avatar so it's basically stolen (plagiarized) because you didn't give the original photographer credit, you didn't buy its rights to use and it is stolen to represent your avatar.

Look, brain dead, I've pretty well left you alone and now you're in here where we post articles all the time and comment on their relevance. Go have a grouch attack somewhere else or at least learn the protocol about how we post opinions and then discuss them.

You can show us all the full frontal stupidity you want in those endeavors.

Sexyeccentric1 could read a book or two while you were picking meaningless fights to support your need for adrenalin rushes. You generated adrenalin with the conflict you initiate over meaningless drivel. I watch you stalk others on the board. Please feel free to look that stupid here, too.

Watch out, Bolt. Stevie is "watching" you "stalk" others. But don't say Stevie is "stalking" you, he is simply "watching" you "stalk."

Be afraid, be very afraid.

I really dont give a fuck like I said it really isnt an issue except for the Democrats that sorely need something to deflect from the mess Obama has made.
Does anyone know if he is in country on vacation or out of country on vacation. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

mcbarker you are a nasty pup wish you were on vacation.wtf don't you have anything new to contribute???

Sexyeccentric1

Do you have any of your own thoughts on the matter or are you just going to continue to plagiarize
. Originally Posted by Boltfan

watch it I B hankering will tell you that isn't a word LOL

watch it I B hankering will tell you that isn't a word LOL Originally Posted by ekim008

Ekim the Inbred, unlike you, Boltfan obviously knows how to spell the word.

Then, I guess pussy is a "Constitutional Right". It just isn't fair that 50% of the people control 100% of the pussy, some of us can't afford the amount of pussy we really need. Redistribute the pussy I say! Let the government set the price so all can get what they need! Pussy stamps! Free the pussies!!

LOL, funny that "everything" (except the unencumbered right to be armed) is a "right" now.

As to gay marriage, I really could not possibly care less who marries whom, there's a sucker born every minute.

A gay person can get married within the understanding of what marriage is. They can't marry someone of the same sex, an animal, or a sibling.

? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That is the part that is discrimination.

Nobody can marry their siblings or an animal. That is not discrimination. You know why? Because nobody can do it. If only straight people could marry their sibling then that too would be discrimination. That is how it works. When you deny another the same rights you have based on race creed or sex, you are discriminating against them. Same thing the military did for years until they let women in.


It is really a stupid uneducated argument. Using the exact same stupidity, we could deny whites from marrying blacks, oh wait, at one point in our bigoted history we did that exact thing. People like you used that same ignorant defense.
Marriage is between two people, the state should not interject themselves into a contract between two people. I thought you were a Conservative. No self respecting Conservative would deny another the exact same right they had, which is to marry the one person you love. Not being able to do so denies gay people many privileges that other married folks have. It is discriminatory in nature. If you are for blatant discrimination then you are not a true Conservative.

Do you guys want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

This is so tranparent and you guys are buying into this. Why do gay people want to get "married"? They say that it is because of benefits, inheritance, hospital policies, etc. Can they have that with the proper legislation and civil unions like in Germany? Yes So why aren't they happy then, why persist? Because this is all about politics and a wedge issue. Politics!!! Don't have a job, no health insurance, it must be because you're gay and the GOP hates you. Vote for Obama! What kind of an idiot buys into this? Look around, we see some of them right here.

Ever hear of give em an inch and they'll take a mile. In 1971 the newly minted EPA got DDT banned and it was celebrated as the first "political" victory. Not a health win but a political win. There was no conclusive evidence and the judge decided in favor of the DDT manufacturers but the EPA WON! They didn't stop there. No, they wanted more until they want to control farm dust.

The people have spoken in over 30 states, no gay marriage. Why do the fascists on this site (and yes, you are fascists if you think the government should control this) reject the voice of the people? Why are you so backwards and hard hearted that you ignore what the most important people in this country want. I suppose I have to point out to some that the most important people are the voters and not Hollywood. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Most voters at one time did not want blacks or women to vote. That is what you sound like with your logic. The true Conservatives on here get it. Those I actually get along with.

what is a limiting principle as it would be applied to marriage that would not cause marriage to cease to be a respected institution, with a meaning and a responsibility and a purpose? by respected, i mean institutionally, by law.

its difficult to imagine a principle, not just a stated reason, but a guiding principle, given the president's "new/old/depends on pressure or contributions" position.

biden said its love, that we should be guided by people loving. thats not much of a principle, nor can it be objectively measured or judged by outsiders much less the government who shall issue a license.

if its love as the guiding principle, then a marriage among three or more people can certainly be imagined, or marriage to a dog, i loved my dog you know. actually when its marriage among three or more ( i dont think i should use the word "between" as that seems to be a word reserved for a thing "between" two of something, although i havent looked that up, so i am using the word "among"), i get the feeling of the idea of a hub and spokes, with women at the end of each spoke and the man as the hub who does the loving, but thats just me.

if the guiding principle is the word two, as in marriage should be between two of something, two men, two women or two complimentarily beings (as in a man and a woman), then why? that seems so arbitrary and opposed to the love principle and so hateful and disrespectful of others who "feel" differently and wish to marry four people.

i was listening to a program. this man asked a woman lawyer, who was arguing for homosexual "marriage" as opposed to some sort of contractual thing, what would be the limiting principle of government should it be allowed, why couldn't three people get married or more or why cant anyone marry anything? and she thought for a moment, and what she said almost caused me to fall off my chair. she said, well, TRADITIONALLY it has been between two people.

crazy to use the word tradition dont you think?

what about marriage being the traditional thing that brings forth the next generation? and what about it should be guarded by government for it's the basis of society and be protected and held with specialness in law, not because of people loving, which is allowed, or people being able to give durable power of attorney to another or leave things in a will or living with someone which already is allowed, but because a man and a woman really are complimentary in the raising of children, together bringing a fullness that apart would be lacking? in other words, in the words of famous democrats everywhere, "for the children"?

Here. here....................well stated JD.......

I look forward to the answer as illustrated by the civil unions recongized in Germany. But they won't.

The G&L agenda (goal) is to destroy the definition of marriage so their deviance will be normalized (in their mind and talking points).

Do you guys want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

This is so tranparent and you guys are buying into this. Why do gay people want to get "married"? They say that it is because of benefits, inheritance, hospital policies, etc. Can they have that with the proper legislation and civil unions like in Germany? Yes So why aren't they happy then, why persist? Because this is all about politics and a wedge issue. Politics!!! Don't have a job, no health insurance, it must be because you're gay and the GOP hates you. Vote for Obama! What kind of an idiot buys into this? Look around, we see some of them right here.

Ever hear of give em an inch and they'll take a mile. In 1971 the newly minted EPA got DDT banned and it was celebrated as the first "political" victory. Not a health win but a political win. There was no conclusive evidence and the judge decided in favor of the DDT manufacturers but the EPA WON! They didn't stop there. No, they wanted more until they want to control farm dust.

The people have spoken in over 30 states, no gay marriage. Why do the fascists on this site (and yes, you are fascists if you think the government should control this) reject the voice of the people? Why are you so backwards and hard hearted that you ignore what the most important people in this country want. I suppose I have to point out to some that the most important people are the voters and not Hollywood. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Here. here....................well stated JD.......

I look forward to the answer as illustrated by the civil unions recongized in Germany. But they won't.

The G&L agenda (goal) is to destroy the definition of marriage so their deviance will be normalized (in their mind and talking points). Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Now you want us to be like Germany. I thought we were leaders!

That is the part that is discrimination.

Nobody can marry their siblings or an animal. That is not discrimination. You know why? Because nobody can do it. If only straight people could marry their sibling then that too would be discrimination. That is how it works. When you deny another the same rights you have based on race creed or sex, you are discriminating against them. Same thing the military did for years until they let women in.


It is really a stupid uneducated argument. Using the exact same stupidity, we could deny whites from marrying blacks, oh wait, at one point in our bigoted history we did that exact thing. People like you used that same ignorant defense.
Marriage is between two people, the state should not interject themselves into a contract between two people. I thought you were a Conservative. No self respecting Conservative would deny another the exact same right they had, which is to marry the one person you love. Not being able to do so denies gay people many privileges that other married folks have. It is discriminatory in nature. If you are for blatant discrimination then you are not a true Conservative. Originally Posted by WTF

General Colin L. Powell said it best: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”