I just converted to Mormonism....

It is for me.

Evil cults started by a pedophile that oppresses people they don't like.

Yup, totally worthy of my contempt.

You see, this election isn't about idealogy for me at this point. I don't think either party has an answer, and they are both too invested with the monied interests.

But stopping the Mormon Cult from gaining power. Completely worth putting up with 4 more years of that idiot Obama.

So you would rather support a Islamist rather than a Morman?

Do you know any Mormans that are blowing themselves up?

Do you know any Mormans that own wives?

Mormans have some strange ideas but they are hardly worse than the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama so strongly supports.
 
The f it wouldn't. Public schools would be required morally sanction gay behavior. And gays would get the same tax breaks as hetero couples who need them more for children they are raising.

I have no fears about the gay lifestyles. Again you're relying on your ignorant insults instead of engaging in practical rhetoric.

Wait, Guy, I thought the whining of the crazy right is that there's a marriage penalty! That we are making married couples pay more! So you are saying gays volunteering to pay more in taxes is a bad thing? Really?

I'm wondering exactly how the schools would be morally sanctioning gay behavior. This should be laughable.

I'm not a tax expert, in fact I don't really follow it much at all. But I know enough to know that a married couple with kids gets better tax breaks than say two people living together. I know that the tax ramifications of changing the marriage definition will definitely come into effect.

And gay indoctrination in California is/was a reality. I don't have time to go searching through articles; but here's something recent guy that shows the California gay politics GUY.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | California Gov. signs law mandating pro-gay curriculum

NO, seriously, that was the best you could come up with? he signed a law telling history teachers that they need to talk about great gays of history. Really? (And he did this without gay marriage being the law. Imagine that.)

Kind of thought it was a silly law, but no sillier than black history month or women's history month.
 
It is for me.

Evil cults started by a pedophile that oppresses people they don't like.

Yup, totally worthy of my contempt.

You see, this election isn't about idealogy for me at this point. I don't think either party has an answer, and they are both too invested with the monied interests.

But stopping the Mormon Cult from gaining power. Completely worth putting up with 4 more years of that idiot Obama.

So you would rather support a Islamist rather than a Morman?

Do you know any Mormans that are blowing themselves up?

Do you know any Mormans that own wives?

Mormans have some strange ideas but they are hardly worse than the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama so strongly supports.

Actually, I'm slightly shocked you keep spelling it "Morman". Or that you really think Obama is an "Islamist". Am I talking to a "birfer" here? :cuckoo:
 
Wait, Guy, I thought the whining of the crazy right is that there's a marriage penalty! That we are making married couples pay more! So you are saying gays volunteering to pay more in taxes is a bad thing? Really?

I'm wondering exactly how the schools would be morally sanctioning gay behavior. This should be laughable.

I'm not a tax expert, in fact I don't really follow it much at all. But I know enough to know that a married couple with kids gets better tax breaks than say two people living together. I know that the tax ramifications of changing the marriage definition will definitely come into effect.

And gay indoctrination in California is/was a reality. I don't have time to go searching through articles; but here's something recent guy that shows the California gay politics GUY.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | California Gov. signs law mandating pro-gay curriculum

NO, seriously, that was the best you could come up with? he signed a law telling history teachers that they need to talk about great gays of history. Really? (And he did this without gay marriage being the law. Imagine that.)

Kind of thought it was a silly law, but no sillier than black history month or women's history month.

No it's not the best I could come up with. Learn to f'ing read. I said I'm not going to go searching for you. But I live in California and I saw how it went down. They were trying to legislate a gay marriage morality for the public education system. I just gave you a taste of what it was.

I frankly don't want kids to have to have people's sexuality discussed in the schools. That's not what the schools are for; to politicize hypersensitive issues. And I told you that gay marriage is just another bullet in their gun for bs like that.
 
No it's not the best I could come up with. Learn to f'ing read. I said I'm not going to go searching for you. But I live in California and I saw how it went down. They were trying to legislate a gay marriage morality for the public education system. I just gave you a taste of what it was.

I frankly don't want kids to have to have people's sexuality discussed in the schools. That's not what the schools are for; to politicize hypersensitive issues. And I told you that gay marriage is just another bullet in their gun for bs like that.

I'm always amazed that there are supposed adults out there who apparently completely forgot what it was to be a kid, or that kids are a lot more perceptive than we give them credit for.

Despite my sheltered Catholic upbringing, I knew what gays were from the 6th grade, and I knew what sex was. (and again, this is growing up in the early 1970's, when our porn stashes were still paper). If you don't think the kids are disucssing this on their own, you are kind of delusional.

Again, kids will be told, that, hey, some people are gay, and you should just learn to deal.

NOt seeing the problem here.
 
No it's not the best I could come up with. Learn to f'ing read. I said I'm not going to go searching for you. But I live in California and I saw how it went down. They were trying to legislate a gay marriage morality for the public education system. I just gave you a taste of what it was.

I frankly don't want kids to have to have people's sexuality discussed in the schools. That's not what the schools are for; to politicize hypersensitive issues. And I told you that gay marriage is just another bullet in their gun for bs like that.

I'm always amazed that there are supposed adults out there who apparently completely forgot what it was to be a kid, or that kids are a lot more perceptive than we give them credit for.

Despite my sheltered Catholic upbringing, I knew what gays were from the 6th grade, and I knew what sex was. (and again, this is growing up in the early 1970's, when our porn stashes were still paper). If you don't think the kids are disucssing this on their own, you are kind of delusional.

Again, kids will be told, that, hey, some people are gay, and you should just learn to deal.

NOt seeing the problem here.

All kids know who gays are nowadays genius. But that doesn't mean parents should have to put up with the government promoting sexuality to their kids. And based on that, it is irrelevant what kids are discussing on their own. I cussed like a sailor with friends, that doesn't mean it was a good idea for teachers to cuss up a storm in front of me. Use your brain. You're giving me some lame arguments.
 
I agree with Gatsby that the gays in history class is stupid. Whether someone is gay or straight shouldn't be brought up in history unless they're being gay or straight has something to do with history.

However I still haven't read an anti-gay marriage opinion that isn't based on being a homophobe (Obama included). The tax excuse is your reason than you obviously think homos are less likely to be good parents than heteros, and thus don't deserve the tax credit, which is still based on homophobia.
 
I agree with Gatsby that the gays in history class is stupid. Whether someone is gay or straight shouldn't be brought up in history unless they're being gay or straight has something to do with history.

However I still haven't read an anti-gay marriage opinion that isn't based on being a homophobe (Obama included). The tax excuse is your reason than you obviously think homos are less likely to be good parents than heteros, and thus don't deserve the tax credit, which is still based on homophobia.

Gays could be good parents. But I think that children inherently benefit the most from having male and female influence.

And marriage is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids. You can't ignore that reality.

Right now, gays generally have all of the rights of heteros. They just want marriage as some stamp of approval for their morality. That's not government's job.
 
Gays could be good parents. But I think that children inherently benefit the most from having male and female influence.

And marriage is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids. You can't ignore that reality.

Right now, gays generally have all of the rights of heteros. They just want marriage as some stamp of approval for their morality. That's not government's job.

So by your logic, we should take children away from single or gay parents and put them in the homes of heterosexual partners? I mean, how far do you want to go?

When the government says "we are giving special priviliges to straight couples, but denying them to gays", that's discrimination. Maybe justified, but you guys aren't doing a very good job of justifying it.
 
Gays could be good parents. But I think that children inherently benefit the most from having male and female influence.

And marriage is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids. You can't ignore that reality.

Right now, gays generally have all of the rights of heteros. They just want marriage as some stamp of approval for their morality. That's not government's job.

So by your logic, we should take children away from single or gay parents and put them in the homes of heterosexual partners?

Not by my logic. Stop extrapolating stupid points that don't exist. We want to set-up the best frame work for society. Doing so does not mean take away parental rights. Seriously, don't put words in my mouth; especially stupid points.
 
The Mormon the merrier.


Yes.....he will be in good company.....:lol:

Times and Seasons has selected Harry Reid as Mormon of the Year for 2009.

During 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the most visible and influential Mormon politician in the world, shepherding Democratic legislative proposals through the U.S. Senate after the party’s victories in the 2008 elections, including a landmark health care bill that represents one of the more controversial pieces of legislation to pass through the Senate in recent memory. Reid’s off-the-cuff style has also led occasionally to unscripted remarks that have attracted a lot of attention

Times and Seasons 2009 Mormon of the Year: Harry Reid | Times & Seasons


Mitt20and20Reid.jpg
 
Gays could be good parents. But I think that children inherently benefit the most from having male and female influence.

And marriage is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids. You can't ignore that reality.

Right now, gays generally have all of the rights of heteros. They just want marriage as some stamp of approval for their morality. That's not government's job.

So by your logic, we should take children away from single or gay parents and put them in the homes of heterosexual partners?

Not by my logic. Stop extrapolating stupid points that don't exist. We want to set-up the best frame work for society. Doing so does not mean take away parental rights. Seriously, don't put words in my mouth; especially stupid points.

I'm just bringing your illogical point to their illogical conclusion. If you work on the assumption that families with one parent each of the oppossite gender is the optimal environment, why let anyone be raised in a less than one?

It's a bullshit point, of course, I know couples that are simply awful parents and single and gay parents who do a wonderful job. Of course, the coporatists would have us all working four jobs between two parents and they never get to see our kids. We need Polo ponies. Hey, think that's a bad idea. There are some gay people over there.
 
I agree with Gatsby that the gays in history class is stupid. Whether someone is gay or straight shouldn't be brought up in history unless they're being gay or straight has something to do with history.

However I still haven't read an anti-gay marriage opinion that isn't based on being a homophobe (Obama included). The tax excuse is your reason than you obviously think homos are less likely to be good parents than heteros, and thus don't deserve the tax credit, which is still based on homophobia.

Gays could be good parents. But I think that children inherently benefit the most from having male and female influence.

And marriage is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids. You can't ignore that reality.

Right now, gays generally have all of the rights of heteros. They just want marriage as some stamp of approval for their morality. That's not government's job.

Male and female influece yes, doesn't have to be parents. My mom is a bitch who i almost never talk to, but i've had other great female influences in my life, older sisters, teachers, grandma, etc.

It is a strong part of the tax code b/c of kids, not ignoring it, just stating it's wrong to have tax codes that discrimate against couples that can have kids. Gay couples for example.

That's your own judgement. Frankly i don't give a damn what their motivation is, a negative assumption about why they want equal rights sure sounds like homophobia at work to me. No matter their motivation, equal rights in all areas should be the goal for everyone, even if it doesn't harm you.
 
Frankly i don't give a damn what their motivation is, a negative assumption about why they want equal rights sure sounds like homophobia at work to me. No matter their motivation, equal rights in all areas should be the goal for everyone, even if it doesn't harm you.

If I thought gay marriage was about equality, I'd be with you. But frankly, gays have all the rights I do. Changing the function of marriage (which is centered on producing and raising children) is pandering. It's not about getting any rights that they don't already have. It's just a ploy for govt. to stamp their lifestyle as morally approved.

I've said it already. Gays have all the exact same rights (even more if they are in a civil union) as I do as a straight sing heterosexual male.
 
Frankly i don't give a damn what their motivation is, a negative assumption about why they want equal rights sure sounds like homophobia at work to me. No matter their motivation, equal rights in all areas should be the goal for everyone, even if it doesn't harm you.

If I thought gay marriage was about equality, I'd be with you. But frankly, gays have all the rights I do. Changing the function of marriage (which is centered on producing and raising children) is pandering. It's not about getting any rights that they don't already have. It's just a ploy for govt. to stamp their lifestyle as morally approved.

I've said it already. Gays have all the exact same rights (even more if they are in a civil union) as I do as a straight sing heterosexual male.

If you weren't allowed to get married, you'd have an issue with it. Since it's someone elses problem, you don't.

Gays can have children, pretending children is the reason you don't want equal rights is a lie. There's nothing moral about being a homophobe, but a lying homophobe is worse than an honest one.
 
Frankly i don't give a damn what their motivation is, a negative assumption about why they want equal rights sure sounds like homophobia at work to me. No matter their motivation, equal rights in all areas should be the goal for everyone, even if it doesn't harm you.

If I thought gay marriage was about equality, I'd be with you. But frankly, gays have all the rights I do. Changing the function of marriage (which is centered on producing and raising children) is pandering. It's not about getting any rights that they don't already have. It's just a ploy for govt. to stamp their lifestyle as morally approved.

I've said it already. Gays have all the exact same rights (even more if they are in a civil union) as I do as a straight sing heterosexual male.

If you weren't allowed to get married, you'd have an issue with it. Since it's someone elses problem, you don't.

Gays can have children, pretending children is the reason you don't want equal rights is a lie. There's nothing moral about being a homophobe, but a lying homophobe is worse than an honest one.

And if you call me a homophobe again - don't expect a response b/c I take that as a statement that I hate based on sexuality and that is not me at all and I won't tolerate that nonsense.

I could care less if the govt. sanctioned marriage for me. If it weren't for taxes if and when I decide to have children, I'd prefer to avoid it. I don't want the govt. in my life.

And that gays can have children is a red herring. We know that heterosexual couples more naturally and more often have children and that heterosexual marriage is the backbone of society. Homosexual marriage largely isn't about children. It's about seeking the govt. to stamp there morality and I've made it clear that I'm not into govt. endorsed morality. I'm not for them endorsing religion and I'm not for them endorsing sexuality. That's people's business, not the govt's business.
 
Last edited:
If I thought gay marriage was about equality, I'd be with you. But frankly, gays have all the rights I do. Changing the function of marriage (which is centered on producing and raising children) is pandering. It's not about getting any rights that they don't already have. It's just a ploy for govt. to stamp their lifestyle as morally approved.

I've said it already. Gays have all the exact same rights (even more if they are in a civil union) as I do as a straight sing heterosexual male.

If you weren't allowed to get married, you'd have an issue with it. Since it's someone elses problem, you don't.

Gays can have children, pretending children is the reason you don't want equal rights is a lie. There's nothing moral about being a homophobe, but a lying homophobe is worse than an honest one.

And if you call me a homophobe again - don't expect a response b/c I take that as a statement that I hate based on sexuality and that is not me at all and I won't tolerate that nonsense.

I could care less if the govt. sanctioned marriage for me. If it weren't for taxes if and when I decide to have children, I'd prefer to avoid it. I don't want the govt. in my life.

And that gays can have children is a red herring. We know that heterosexual couples more naturally and more often have children and that heterosexual marriage is the backbone of society. Homosexual marriage largely isn't about children. It's about seeking the govt. to stamp there morality and I've made it clear that I'm not into govt. endorsed morality. I'm not for them endorsing religion and I'm not for them endorsing sexuality. That's people's business, not the govt's business.

So since gays have less children, the gays who do have children should have a higher financial burden placed on them and their children because they're gay? That's equality to you?

I see you'll stick to that lie as long as you can using your broad brush to tell us why every gay person wants marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't talked to one gay person about gay marriage in your entire life. Like all homophobes, you can use a broad brush and make a negative blanket statement about all gays. Would you ever do this about heteros? Of course not. Why can you do this? I can't think of any possible reason other than ignorance, as ignorance is what fuels bigotry.
 
I literally am living 20 miles from the nonsense called Mormons, get out while you can
 

Forum List

Back
Top