let's keep this on track wrote:
So far we've had gay marriage compared to:
Polygamy
Marrying a tree
Incest
Pedophilia
Slow down guys, it is hard for me to keep up!
lets keep track of this also wrote:
And let's see, so far those opposed to gay marriage have been called
idiots
inbred
bigots
Well in that case, those comparisons for gay marriage are totally justified!
Will E wrote:
What is it about 3 or more consenting adults that you don't understand? Why wouldn't polygamy be next?
Seriously, you can't figure that out?
Rock Hudson wrote:
Oh for another AIDS pandemic - and this one completing the unfinished business the last one didn’t manage to achieve.
AMEN! You could have hoped the first go around would have caused these people to reconsider their perverted and sinful ways. Not so.
I feel proud to be an American today. For once. This is what our country is about. Equal opportunity.
Felching! Your sons are felching! Enjoy liberals. Enjoy..
Lyndon LaRouche wrote:
Kenny Knisley wrote:Polygamy is next. At this point, what valid argument can be used against it?
as long as they are consenting adults, what *is* wrong w/ ploygamy? Who cares? Why do you care?
If a guy wants to marry his lawn furniture, he should be able to. Who really cares?
exactly! and if a guy wants to be officially declared a Rhodes Scholar despite his highest attained ed level being a GED, who are you to object? Anyone should be able to change the definition of anything to suit whatever they want, right? What's the harm in changing the def in marriage? Why deny anyone who thinks they should be officially classified as 'married', based on the criteria of their own choosing?
Next we'll have to make it illegal, of course, for any individual or organization (like a church) to speak ill of the 'right' of butt-pirates to 'marry'. The hate speech po-po will have a field day.
Think of all those self-righteous do-gooders about to get their come uppance, huh? No more tax exempt status, either!
Our society is truly evolving. comrades. Orwell was a damn fine prophet..
MATTHEW SHEPARD WON'T BE THE ONLY ONE BURNING IN HELL!
Ah yes. How inconvenienced heterosexual couples must feel to have "marriage" also be applicable to a man joining a man in union, or a woman joining a woman.
Rock Hudson wrote:
Oh for another AIDS pandemic - and this one completing the unfinished business the last one didn’t manage to achieve.
You sound like a really good person.
Kenny Knisley wrote:
So if there is a, "hard separation of church and state" why does the state have anything to do with what ordained by God and has always been a religious ceremony? Quite a convenient way for you all to somehow hijack a religious rite for your own selfish reasons. Where's your logic?
I think it's safe to say that religion has had it's fair share of involvement when it comes to the government and marriage.
If nothing else, the hyperbolic nonsense and fear mongering being spewed by the bigots today is evidence that the SCOTUS did the right thing.
I brake for colored people wrote:
If nothing else, the hyperbolic nonsense and fear mongering being spewed by the bigots today is evidence that the SCOTUS did the right thing.
My name is Lance wrote:
exactly! and if a guy wants to be officially declared a Rhodes Scholar despite his highest attained ed level being a GED, who are you to object? Anyone should be able to change the definition of anything to suit whatever they want, right? What's the harm in changing the def in marriage? Why deny anyone who thinks they should be officially classified as 'married', based on the criteria of their own choosing?
Next we'll have to make it illegal, of course, for any individual or organization (like a church) to speak ill of the 'right' of butt-pirates to 'marry'. The hate speech po-po will have a field day.
Think of all those self-righteous do-gooders about to get their come uppance, huh? No more tax exempt status, either!
Our society is truly evolving. comrades. Orwell was a damn fine prophet..
If a church wants to define who they will marry, they can. This ruling does not say churches must marry anybody
What is says is that spousal benefits are available to all married couples, regardless of the gender of one or both spouses.
My name is Lance wrote:
exactly! and if a guy wants to be officially declared a Rhodes Scholar despite his highest attained ed level being a GED, who are you to object? Anyone should be able to change the definition of anything to suit whatever they want, right? What's the harm in changing the def in marriage? Why deny anyone who thinks they should be officially classified as 'married', based on the criteria of their own choosing?
Next we'll have to make it illegal, of course, for any individual or organization (like a church) to speak ill of the 'right' of butt-pirates to 'marry'. The hate speech po-po will have a field day.
Think of all those self-righteous do-gooders about to get their come uppance, huh? No more tax exempt status, either!
Our society is truly evolving. comrades. Orwell was a damn fine prophet..
Lance is a lib playing the role (and doing it quite well) of a dimwitted conservative.
I just wanted to point out that incest can be between two consenting adults.
Freddie Mercury wrote:
Rock Hudson wrote:Oh for another AIDS pandemic - and this one completing the unfinished business the last one didn’t manage to achieve.
AMEN! You could have hoped the first go around would have caused these people to reconsider their perverted and sinful ways. Not so.
I recall a surgeon saying if vile creatures are prepared to use the human body’s major sewer pipe as a playground - they must accept the potential consequences - Amen to that.
I think when the Worldwide Caliphate comes into being, (praise be to Allah) this sort of nonsense will soon be rectified.
Liar wrote:
What is it about 2 consenting adults that you don't understand?
cant help but think wrote:And in other news, the Supreme Court's decision legalizing polygamy, incest, and pedophilia is due tomorrow. . . .
Incest can be between 2 consenting adults.
Why limit marriage to 2 consenting adults. Why not 3 consenting adults or 4?
I'm truly curious for honest responses for those of you who are so pro gay marriage. I imagine that if your son or daughter came out, you would happily accept that without hesitation.
But my question is this. Before such an admission or indication that your child might be gay, would you ever encourage your son or daughter in this way? I mean, would you tell your son, "Hey, there's a cute boy over there, why don't you date him?" If he hadn't indicated he was gay, would you encourage him in this way, just like you would encourage him to date a cute girl?
If not, do you think subconsciously you're biased against homosexuality more than you're willing to admit? Seems like you would have a preference for one sexual orientation over the other, even though you wouldn't want to admit it.
cards on the table wrote:
I'm truly curious for honest responses for those of you who are so pro gay marriage. I imagine that if your son or daughter came out, you would happily accept that without hesitation.
But my question is this. Before such an admission or indication that your child might be gay, would you ever encourage your son or daughter in this way? I mean, would you tell your son, "Hey, there's a cute boy over there, why don't you date him?" If he hadn't indicated he was gay, would you encourage him in this way, just like you would encourage him to date a cute girl?
If not, do you think subconsciously you're biased against homosexuality more than you're willing to admit? Seems like you would have a preference for one sexual orientation over the other, even though you wouldn't want to admit it.
I don't try to play matchmaker with my kids, be it boys or girls.