Newsweek: "Obama First Gay President"

[mal]

Wow - a "disgusting example of not only the species, but gays in general"....

There was absolutely nothing Bodecea said in this entire thread that warranted such a nasty comment....

Very trashy on your part, Mal.



.

In this Thread... She went after someone's Marriage:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5285381-post315.html

She has Claimed that Catholics in general are Pro-Pedophilia:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...olors-catholics-support-pedophile-rights.html

She has also that there are people on this Forum, specifically on a Thread, that are Mourning bin Laden's Death:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/221175-a-miserable-****-says-what.html

Fuck her and Fuck you if you don't Wise up.



peace...

I'll let her defend the others (if she wants to)...

But as for the marriage one (which I am somewhat familiar being that I am involved in this thread) I think multiple posters were rudely attacking her and claiming that her family was not valid, and that she can't have a wife, ect, ect, so I felt her retaliations were perfectly warranted.

.

I disagree and your Cowardly Dismissal of the other Examples is Noted.



peace...

 

[The Rabbi]

My wife and I have been together for over 26 years now. Married in church in 1990, married LEGALLY in California a few years ago before Prop H8 cut others off. We represent stability in society too...have a child going to college...an ideal outcome for the state.


So, we've represented stability and an ideal outcome for the state LONGER than you.

Tell it to these folks:
First Same-Sex Couple to Marry in the U.S. Files for Divorce

Same-sex divorce case heads to top Maryland court - Baltimore Sun

Ohio Judge Grants Gay Couple Divorce - Topix

And no, you don't have a child. ONly one of you does.

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

 

[bodecea]

Tell it to these folks:
First Same-Sex Couple to Marry in the U.S. Files for Divorce

Same-sex divorce case heads to top Maryland court - Baltimore Sun

Ohio Judge Grants Gay Couple Divorce - Topix

And no, you don't have a child. ONly one of you does.

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

 

[del]

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

even for you, this is really shtupid.

 

[KevinWestern]

In this Thread... She went after someone's Marriage:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5285381-post315.html

She has Claimed that Catholics in general are Pro-Pedophilia:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...olors-catholics-support-pedophile-rights.html

She has also that there are people on this Forum, specifically on a Thread, that are Mourning bin Laden's Death:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/221175-a-miserable-****-says-what.html

Fuck her and Fuck you if you don't Wise up.



peace...

I'll let her defend the others (if she wants to)...

But as for the marriage one (which I am somewhat familiar being that I am involved in this thread) I think multiple posters were rudely attacking her and claiming that her family was not valid, and that she can't have a wife, ect, ect, so I felt her retaliations were perfectly warranted.

.

I disagree and your Cowardly Dismissal of the other Examples is Noted.



peace...

Saying that I don't feel like going through three entire threads to analyze the context of each of Bodecea's statements is a "cowardly dismissal"?

Give me a break. Grow up.

.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Okay, I'm screwed on the left-handed ginger front, not that it matters. Because after 13 years of happily married to a MAN, because that's all that matters, he abruptly ended our marriage and moved in his cyber whackadoodle.

Yup, that's American marriage. Sacred, my ass.

By the way, Bod; hugs to the wife.

Reb, Rabbi - combined IQ of 84, I wanna say. It doesn't matter how often you say she doesn't have a wife? She has a wife. They are legally married, and all your whining, bitching, moaning, groaning and complaining won't change that.

Sucks to be you.

 

[BDBoop]

I'll let her defend the others (if she wants to)...

But as for the marriage one (which I am somewhat familiar being that I am involved in this thread) I think multiple posters were rudely attacking her and claiming that her family was not valid, and that she can't have a wife, ect, ect, so I felt her retaliations were perfectly warranted.

.

I disagree and your Cowardly Dismissal of the other Examples is Noted.



peace...

Saying that I don't feel like going through three entire threads to analyze the context of each of Bodecea's statements is a "cowardly dismissal"?

Give me a break. Grow up.

.

That won't be happening. He has made a conscious decision not to grow up.

 

[Bigfoot]

but we are waiting for one of you leftist freaks to point out a society or culture which has ever worked where marriage was meaningless and people breed like dogs, as you are promoting.

And no, don't use detroit as your example!

lol

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Eliminating perversion from the definition of marriage does not exclude blacks or hispanics or left handed people. It eliminates pedophiles and six year old wives or husands, those who want to marry dogs or toasters.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you too have boundaries. The line just doesn't include yourself. It might include your next door neighbor who feels he has married his 12 year old daughter, but it doesn't include you. That's the difference. Not that there is a line someplace, but where that line is.

People do not want their religion changed. No matter how many times gays say they have no intention for forcing Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, the time is long gone when anyone would believe them. Too many lawsuits against Catholic schools and institutions for that to have any credibility. After asking for one thing, then demanding something else all together, homosexuals have done the one thing that is unforgivable and it is starting to show. They made themselves obnoxious. What these laws against same sex marriage show, more that disdain for the union itself, is a demand from the general public to be let alone.

 

[Mustang]

and all that has WHAT exactly to do with this thread?
who cares what you thought of the Reagan's, as you said, he is dead.

I commented earlier about Reagan calling his wife "Mommy" by saying that seemed kinda gay. That's what it has to do with this thread. The T seemed to take it personally.

Since Reagan was hetero, and Nancy is hetero there doesn't seem anything "gay" about it.
Frankly you seem a little light in the loafers to me.

You've got all the perceptive powers of Senator Frist when he diagnosed Terri Shiavo from a video tape.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Okay, I'm screwed on the left-handed ginger front, not that it matters. Because after 13 years of happily married to a MAN, because that's all that matters, he abruptly ended our marriage and moved in his cyber whackadoodle.

Yup, that's American marriage. Sacred, my ass.

By the way, Bod; hugs to the wife.

Reb, Rabbi - combined IQ of 84, I wanna say. It doesn't matter how often you say she doesn't have a wife? She has a wife. They are legally married, and all your whining, bitching, moaning, groaning and complaining won't change that.

Sucks to be you.

I never wrote she didnt have a wife.
Sucks to be a loser illiterate like you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah...we get divorced too.....just like heteros do. What a shocker. That makes us no better, no worse. How about Equal?

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Law abiding tax paying is hardly the same thing. You probably keep your carpet cleaned as well. Irrelevant.
But we aren't talking about eliminating people who have a constitutionally protected right to marriage. We are talking about people who want to usurp a right and pretend a cat is a dog.

 

[Liability]

I never knew Buchanan was gay.

 

[KevinWestern]

Gives the lie to the idea of stability. Another fallacy of your refuted.
If we have a problem with normal people getting divorced why make it worse by adding queers?

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Eliminating perversion from the definition of marriage does not exclude blacks or hispanics or left handed people. It eliminates pedophiles and six year old wives or husands, those who want to marry dogs or toasters.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you too have boundaries. The line just doesn't include yourself. It might include your next door neighbor who feels he has married his 12 year old daughter, but it doesn't include you. That's the difference. Not that there is a line someplace, but where that line is.

People do not want their religion changed. No matter how many times gays say they have no intention for forcing Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, the time is long gone when anyone would believe them. Too many lawsuits against Catholic schools and institutions for that to have any credibility. After asking for one thing, then demanding something else all together, homosexuals have done the one thing that is unforgivable and it is starting to show. They made themselves obnoxious. What these laws against same sex marriage show, more that disdain for the union itself, is a demand from the general public to be let alone.

The debate to allow (a) any two consenting adult humans to marry is a completely different on than the debate to allow (b) humans to marry toasters, children, or animals. Toasters are inanimate objects, children are too young to consent, and animals are incapable of consenting.

Is everyone reasonable enough to acknowledge there's a big difference between debate (a) & (b)?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The first gay President and Vice President.

"I promise you the President has a big stick" Joe Biden Apr 26, 2012

 

[mal]

I never knew Buchanan was gay.

Everyone is Gay in Bodecea's Reality.



peace...

 

[chanel]

 

[bodecea]

We are law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens. Maybe that's why.

But lets use YOUR silly logic for a moment. If it makes it WORSE to add gays to the marriage mix, it would make it BETTER to take others from the mix. How about disallowing blacks from marriage? Or Hispanics? Or Gingers? Or left-handed people? Or Atheists? Eliminating more groups from legal marriage would make it better, right?

Eliminating perversion from the definition of marriage does not exclude blacks or hispanics or left handed people. It eliminates pedophiles and six year old wives or husands, those who want to marry dogs or toasters.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you too have boundaries. The line just doesn't include yourself. It might include your next door neighbor who feels he has married his 12 year old daughter, but it doesn't include you. That's the difference. Not that there is a line someplace, but where that line is.

People do not want their religion changed. No matter how many times gays say they have no intention for forcing Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, the time is long gone when anyone would believe them. Too many lawsuits against Catholic schools and institutions for that to have any credibility. After asking for one thing, then demanding something else all together, homosexuals have done the one thing that is unforgivable and it is starting to show. They made themselves obnoxious. What these laws against same sex marriage show, more that disdain for the union itself, is a demand from the general public to be let alone.

The debate to allow (a) any two consenting adult humans to marry is a completely different on than the debate to allow (b) humans to marry toasters, children, or animals. Toasters are inanimate objects, children are too young to consent, and animals are incapable of consenting.

Is everyone reasonable enough to acknowledge there's a big difference between debate (a) & (b)?

One thing we need to look at. Are those who make such arguments that marrying toasters, children, dogs is somehow connected with gay marriage are maybe too stupid to see the obvious differences?

It's kind of like the old kid's joke "What's the difference between an elephant and a dozen eggs?" "I don't know." "Well, I'm not sending you to the store for eggs, then."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Eliminating perversion from the definition of marriage does not exclude blacks or hispanics or left handed people. It eliminates pedophiles and six year old wives or husands, those who want to marry dogs or toasters.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you too have boundaries. The line just doesn't include yourself. It might include your next door neighbor who feels he has married his 12 year old daughter, but it doesn't include you. That's the difference. Not that there is a line someplace, but where that line is.

People do not want their religion changed. No matter how many times gays say they have no intention for forcing Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, the time is long gone when anyone would believe them. Too many lawsuits against Catholic schools and institutions for that to have any credibility. After asking for one thing, then demanding something else all together, homosexuals have done the one thing that is unforgivable and it is starting to show. They made themselves obnoxious. What these laws against same sex marriage show, more that disdain for the union itself, is a demand from the general public to be let alone.

The debate to allow (a) any two consenting adult humans to marry is a completely different on than the debate to allow (b) humans to marry toasters, children, or animals. Toasters are inanimate objects, children are too young to consent, and animals are incapable of consenting.

Is everyone reasonable enough to acknowledge there's a big difference between debate (a) & (b)?

One thing we need to look at. Are those who make such arguments that marrying toasters, children, dogs is somehow connected with gay marriage are maybe too stupid to see the obvious differences?

It's kind of like the old kid's joke "What's the difference between an elephant and a dozen eggs?" "I don't know." "Well, I'm not sending you to the store for eggs, then."

It's their right isn't it? Who are you to say only people have rights to something that you support?

 

[mal]

Eliminating perversion from the definition of marriage does not exclude blacks or hispanics or left handed people. It eliminates pedophiles and six year old wives or husands, those who want to marry dogs or toasters.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you too have boundaries. The line just doesn't include yourself. It might include your next door neighbor who feels he has married his 12 year old daughter, but it doesn't include you. That's the difference. Not that there is a line someplace, but where that line is.

People do not want their religion changed. No matter how many times gays say they have no intention for forcing Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, the time is long gone when anyone would believe them. Too many lawsuits against Catholic schools and institutions for that to have any credibility. After asking for one thing, then demanding something else all together, homosexuals have done the one thing that is unforgivable and it is starting to show. They made themselves obnoxious. What these laws against same sex marriage show, more that disdain for the union itself, is a demand from the general public to be let alone.

The debate to allow (a) any two consenting adult humans to marry is a completely different on than the debate to allow (b) humans to marry toasters, children, or animals. Toasters are inanimate objects, children are too young to consent, and animals are incapable of consenting.

Is everyone reasonable enough to acknowledge there's a big difference between debate (a) & (b)?

One thing we need to look at. Are those who make such arguments that marrying toasters, children, dogs is somehow connected with gay marriage are maybe too stupid to see the obvious differences?

It's kind of like the old kid's joke "What's the difference between an elephant and a dozen eggs?" "I don't know." "Well, I'm not sending you to the store for eggs, then."

Siblings and Multiple Spouses can't be Denied this Expansion of "Rights" you seek...

Fact not Fiction.



peace...