The Left Loses Ground...

[PaintMyHouse]

You've said it in every way except saying it, and in my book, but not the court's yet, any two adults can marry, any. Now, if the courts can find a compelling state interest for not allowing two adults to marry, incest is top of the list, which they can't find with homosexuals, then that is another day in court.

First of all, disclaimer before you and other lefties jump to conclusion. I find incest disgusting and I am strongly against it. Now, please explain whats compelling state interest for allowing "gay marriage" and not "marriage" in between mother and adult daughter?

I can't find one but you seem to think there is one for gays not being able to marry?

The incest marriage only has two reasons the state won't approve, but only one is valid and that doesn't hold much water. One, the risks to the children's health when closely related adults mate, which they tend to do when married, and two, the "yuck" factor but that's icky doesn't count in court so all we have is the children. For a childless marriage, the courts are going to have one hell of a time finding valid reasons to discriminate, and they are already dealing with that question here and there. That is why I say any two adults, the risks from potential children shouldn't get in the way of the rights of adults to marry who they wish to.

Regardless of gay marriage that was going to come up. Most incestuous couples are heterosexual...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.​

Not anymore it isn't, not here...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Stop confusing marriage with fucking.

LOL! And in that, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy. See how that works, reader?

Once again Paint, you've managed to demonstrate the profound limitations of your pitiful intellect.

There is no separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of or uninterested in procreation to marry, in NO WAY, alters that fact.

Absent such, there is no purpose for marriage and certainly no reason to offer tax incentives or any other benefit as a consequence of marriage.

You're admitting that marriage and procreation are separated by pointing out that 'the culture' allows marriage without procreation.

No Gilligan, I'm not.

I'm stating... that in your perspective, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy...

I'm stating that there is NO separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of, or otherwise uninterested in procreation: to marry, IN NO WAY ALTERS THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS PRIMARILY: PROCREATION.

And that absent such, there is no purpose for marriage and certainly no reason to offer tax incentives or any other benefit as a consequence of marriage.

Now... by THAT I mean, that where Homosexuals play house, legally joined through civil corporation, they have not subjected themselves to additional liabilities... as does a normal union between a man and a woman.

The Sexual Deviants will not bear children, thus will not be subjected to the liabilities intrinsic to child birth, thus they do not warrant the incentives that are provided for non-deviants.

That's what I am saying, and it's odd that you would ask such a foolish question, given that that is what I SAID!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't celibacy a mental disorder, using your standards? Wouldn't the species disappear if everyone was celibate?

No Gilligan, Celibacy is not a mental disorder. It is a choice, made by a sound mind, which requires great discipline and provides significant rewards to those who find the courage to practice it... many of whom, are those who were molested as infants and toddlers, thus were imprinted with sexual craving for those of the gender of their homosexual molester... who instinctively knowing that their cravings are wrong and a perversion of their sexuality... choose NOT to pursue those deeply twisted cravings and to place the energy that is typically set into pursuing sexual gratification, into other, often highly profitable pursuits.

This is specifically why the economic demographics of homosexuals has been falling like a stone, over the last couple of generations.

But... hey, in fairness to you, as a feminized imbecile, there is NO WAY you could have known THAT!

 

[Skylar]

Stop confusing marriage with fucking.

LOL! And in that, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy. See how that works, reader?

Once again Paint, you've managed to demonstrate the profound limitations of your pitiful intellect.

There is no separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of or uninterested in procreation to marry, in NO WAY, alters that fact.

Absent such, there is no purpose for marriage and certainly no reason to offer tax incentives or any other benefit as a consequence of marriage.

You're admitting that marriage and procreation are separated by pointing out that 'the culture' allows marriage without procreation.

No Gilligan, I'm not.

I'm stating... that in your perspective, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy...

I'm stating that there is NO separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of, or otherwise uninterested in procreation: to marry, IN NO WAY ALTERS THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS PRIMARILY: PROCREATION.

It demonstrates, irrefutably, that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. A basis reaffirmed by the fact that no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married.

Your folly is in assuming that children is the ONLY valid basis of marriage. You're gloriously wrong. There are multiple bases.

 

[Skylar]

Isn't celibacy a mental disorder, using your standards? Wouldn't the species disappear if everyone was celibate?

No Gilligan, Celibacy is not a mental disorder. It is a choice, made by a sound mind, which requires great discipline and provides significant rewards to those who find the courage to practice it... many of whom, are those who were molested as infants and toddlers, thus were imprinted with sexual craving for those of the gender of their homosexual molester... who instinctively knowing that their cravings are wrong and a perversion of their sexuality... choose NOT to pursue those deeply twisted cravings and to place the energy that is typically set into pursuing sexual gratification, into other, often highly profitable pursuits.

Says who? You may be putting too much weight on what Darek Issacs says.

 

[Lilah]

Isn't celibacy a mental disorder, using your standards? Wouldn't the species disappear if everyone was celibate?

No Gilligan, Celibacy is not a mental disorder. It is a choice, made by a sound mind, which requires great discipline and provides significant rewards to those who find the courage to practice it... many of whom, are those who were molested as infants and toddlers, thus were imprinted with sexual craving for those of the gender of their homosexual molester... who instinctively knowing that their cravings are wrong and a perversion of their sexuality... choose NOT to pursue those deeply twisted cravings and to place the energy that is typically set into pursuing sexual gratification, into other, often highly profitable pursuits.

This is specifically why the economic demographics of homosexuals has been falling like a stone, over the last couple of generations.

But... hey, in fairness to you, as a feminized imbecile, there is NO WAY you could have known THAT!

"Celibacy is not a mental disorder. It is a choice, made by a sound mind, by those molested as infants and toddlers, thus were imprinted with sexual craving for those of the gender of their homosexual molester... who instinctively knowing that their cravings are wrong and a perversion of their sexuality... choose NOT to pursue those deeply twisted cravings and to place the energy that is typically set into pursuing sexual gratification, into other, often highly profitable pursuits."

You're too much. How is it possible for a mind to be sound when there are deeply twisted perverted cravings swirling around?

 

[bripat9643]

You're hung up on a word. Luckily for all Americans, the courts care about American Principles and Values, like Equality, before they care about words or tradition which means my little friend, you're fucked, gays will be able to get married anywhere in the US.

So, now what, you just keep banging your head against the wall while the country passes you by?

Back from work...

You could say that I am hung up on a word of marriage. I don't need to explain that bolts and bolts don't go together, although you lefties trying to prove they do. However, I somehow agree that nuts and nuts could go together, because pretty much lefties are all nutz.

Jokes aside, lefties are hung up or rather obsessed with "equality". Yes, DOI proclaims all men to be created equal, it and that means all people, regardless of skin color, religion, sex, etc. have the same natural rights. That doesn't mean all of us have the same physical and mental capacities, or the same income, or the same housing, what you lefties want to force on us. There is no equal marriage. There is just marriage, everything else is just a leftist degeneracy.

Equal means Equal Before The Law, as in two straight adults can get this contract from the state so hey, what do you know, two gay adults can now as well, meaning they are now equal to each other. That is equality. Once the playing field is level the rest is up to you, and it ain't level yet but we're workin' on it.

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing. The purpose of the contract is to promote reproduction of healthy offspring and to determine how assets and legal rights with regard to these offspring are determine should various life events occur. The contract is pointless in the case of homosexual couples.

The government doesn't require urinals in women's bathrooms because of the facts of biology. Gay marriage is just as absurd for the same reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

 

[bripat9643]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Of course it is. That's the way it was for 250 years in this country, and thousands of years in Europe. Are you actually going to claim that Washington and Jefferson believed in gay marriage? No one ever asked if you could reproduce because there was no way to know until you didn't. However, we know beforehand that a couple of male fuck buddies or a couple of dykes are not going to reproduce.

That argument has been shot down 10,000 times already, but never count on a lib to quit using a bad argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Of course it is. That's the way it was for 250 years in this country, and thousands of years in Europe. Are you actually going to claim that Washington and Jefferson believed in gay marriage?

Don't need to. Among other things they were raping (no consent could be granted) their property, AKA human beings known as ******* (slaves). I don't need to ask them about my iPhone either.

 

[bripat9643]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Of course it is. That's the way it was for 250 years in this country, and thousands of years in Europe. Are you actually going to claim that Washington and Jefferson believed in gay marriage?

Don't need to. Among other things they were raping (no consent could be granted) their property, AKA human beings known as ******* (slaves). I don't need to ask them about my iPhone either.

We aren't talking about your iphone. We're talking about laws that have been around for hundreds of years. You claim these laws were intended to include gay couples. I just proved you're full of shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're too much. How is it possible for a mind to be sound when there are deeply twisted perverted cravings swirling around?

All minds experience foolish notions... and there are no exceptions.

Such is the nature of the human brain.

Here's how it works:

The human brain merely samples the senses to determine the status the environment... .

From those samples of its available resources, it plots for solutions to a couple of fundamental considerations; Survival and Procreation; which is broken down into subcategories regarding priority; security, food, shelter, companionship, etc... .

The brain never stops sampling senses and plotting solutions. That's all it does. "Where am I, Why am I here, Where am I going and How do I get there safely."

This whirs around in thein the sub-conscious back-ground 24/7 - non-stop. Sampling and plotting, Sampling and plotting, Sampling and plotting... .

From time to time, flecks of those sub-conscious considerations land upon the desktop, so to speak, flashing into the consciousness. Most of the time, what hits the desk top are those things which are relevant to the task at hand, or a relevant issue.

But occasionally, some odd bit flashes that cause the consciousness to pause... it could be anything, but it usually causes a 'what the fuck was that?', response. The sound mind recognizes it as an anomaly; as just the weird flash of junk that popped into one's head and dismisses it.

The unsound mind, pauses to consider it, and it does so until it turns into a juicy little obsession... the sick fuckin' mind... well it nourishes that odd bit... milking it into a serious problem, which results in the need to act upon it and therein is when someone get's hurt, usually the sick fucker itself... but all too often it sucks some innocent into its sick little vortex.

Could be anything... a notice of how hot the bosses wife is, or something that excites, but is otherwise out of reach or wholly unpractical... such as something that is 'forbidden'.

The sound mind sees it, isolates it, labels it 'disqualified from consideration' and sends it to the trash and deletes the trash file.

The unsound mind... does not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your folly is in assuming that children is the ONLY valid basis of marriage. You're gloriously wrong. There are multiple bases.

Well kids, you can ALWAYS count on the Left to demonstrate WHY it is always foolish to LOWER THE STANDARD.

Now, what you see above is the reason why Standards should never be lowered and that is that the lowering of the standard, will be used by future generations to demand that the standards should be lowered again... and again until the standard does not exist and with that... the rendering of whatever the standard defined, into

> M E A N I N G L E S S N E S S. <​

And that is what the Left is doing for Marriage.

And that is part and parcel of the goal... to destroy marriage, and in so doing to destroy the civilization that is built upon the very premise that defines marriage.

But hey! That is what evil does... RIGHT?

So where's the room for surprise? Evil is doing exactly what is expected of it.

Now the question becomes: DO WE BECOME EVIL, BY CONCEDING TO IT? OR...

Do we combat evil, kick its ass, pack it up in an oil drum, set that in the trunk of an old car and drive that old car into an old truck and bury it WAAAaaay out in the swamp, as far down as the backhoe will scrape, fill that hole with as much dead wood and fuel as we can find, burn it down to ashes and bury it in concrete?

You know my vote... .

Just know that evil is a BITCH and in a bitter irony ... she's not going to go easy.

I honestly do not see this ending well... let alone peacefully.

But these creatures are mentally ill... wholly delusional and they're running the fuckin' world.

So... we got ourselves a real problem here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Of course it is. That's the way it was for 250 years in this country, and thousands of years in Europe. Are you actually going to claim that Washington and Jefferson believed in gay marriage?

Don't need to. Among other things they were raping (no consent could be granted) their property, AKA human beings known as ******* (slaves). I don't need to ask them about my iPhone either.

We aren't talking about your iphone. We're talking about laws that have been around for hundreds of years. You claim these laws were intended to include gay couples. I just proved you're full of shit.

I didn't claim anything of the kind my little infant. Equality is an American value, and in the Constitution. Since marriage here is a license from the state, and all are supposed to be equal that way unless a compelling reason can be found for them not to be, that fucks you right up the ass...

 

[bripat9643]

The contract is intended only for couples who are capable of reproducing.

No, it isn't, which is why no one asks if you can have children, and so many can't or no longer can. That argument also died in the courts so, give it up.

Of course it is. That's the way it was for 250 years in this country, and thousands of years in Europe. Are you actually going to claim that Washington and Jefferson believed in gay marriage?

Don't need to. Among other things they were raping (no consent could be granted) their property, AKA human beings known as ******* (slaves). I don't need to ask them about my iPhone either.

We aren't talking about your iphone. We're talking about laws that have been around for hundreds of years. You claim these laws were intended to include gay couples. I just proved you're full of shit.

I didn't claim anything of the kind my little infant. Equality is an American value, and in the Constitution. Since marriage here is a license from the state, and all are supposed to be equal that way unless a compelling reason can be found for them not to be, that fucks you right up the ass...

I'm afraid you did claim exactly that, Nazi. According to your definition of equality, men have the right to use women's restrooms. Only morons swallow that logic.

That's what fucks you up the ass - in addition to your boyfriend, that is.

 

[Londoner]

Here is the problem Political Chick faces.

Her political party has one goal - which has mostly to do with shaping tax, regulatory and trade policy so that it favors a small class of wealthy Americans.

Problem is: you can't win a national election simply by promising tax and regulatory reform to a small group of people.

To get enough votes to win a national election, you need a populist message that speaks to the masses, the everyday worker who can't afford lobbyists, and doesn't care as much about trade policies and complicated regulatory policies.

For the Republican Party, the populism they use to reach the masses is centered upon religion, tradition and patriotism. This is why the Right needs to trick low-information voters into thinking that homosexuals don't merely want the same rights as heterosexuals but something much more sinister: they want to destroy Christianity and America.

You can't blame Political Chick for trying to fool people. She is an apparatchik for a political movement that has very specific goals. The movement is hoping to scare well-meaning idiots into the voting booth, haunted by ceaseless images of Islamo-fascist illegal immigrant gay gym teachers ...

Tragically, Political Chick's well-meaning idiots are going to come out of the voting booth and find the same world that was there when they went in. This is the world where gay people haven't destroyed Christianity but the people Political Chick represents got a whole lot richer.

(God, if you are out there, I beg of you: please don't let these bastards keep using your image like this.)

 

[Skylar]

Stop confusing marriage with fucking.

LOL! And in that, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy. See how that works, reader?

Once again Paint, you've managed to demonstrate the profound limitations of your pitiful intellect.

There is no separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of or uninterested in procreation to marry, in NO WAY, alters that fact.

Absent such, there is no purpose for marriage and certainly no reason to offer tax incentives or any other benefit as a consequence of marriage.

You're admitting that marriage and procreation are separated by pointing out that 'the culture' allows marriage without procreation.

No Gilligan, I'm not.

I'm stating... that in your perspective, we find yet another presentation of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy...

I'm stating that there is NO separating marriage from procreation... and that the culture allows a man and a woman who are either incapable of, or otherwise uninterested in procreation: to marry, IN NO WAY ALTERS THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS PRIMARILY: PROCREATION.

It demonstrates, irrefutably, that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. A basis reaffirmed by the fact that no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married.

Your folly is in assuming that children is the ONLY valid basis of marriage. You're gloriously wrong. There are multiple bases.

Well kids, you can ALWAYS count on the Left to demonstrate WHY it is always foolish to LOWER THE STANDARD.

Lower what standard? When has anyone been required to procreate or be able to in order to get married? Certainly no time in our nation's history.

The standard you've citing....doesn't exist. Not in any state. Nor has it existed. Demonstratably and irrefutably contradicting your baseless assumption that the ONLY basis of marriage is children.

There are clearly other valid bases. As all the infertile couples marrying demonstrate. Disproving your entire argument. As your claims require that children be the only valid basis.

And your assumptions of exclusivity in validity are demonstrably false.

But hey! That is what evil does... RIGHT?

So where's the room for surprise? Evil is doing exactly what is expected of it.

Laughing......punching holes in your failed logic isn't 'evil'. Your argument simply sucks, failing even a simple test of reason or logic. You assume marriage can have only one valid basis.

And you're hopelessly wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one is forcing anyone to tolerate gay marriage or perform or attend gay marriages.

A post of sheer and colossal ignorance. I can name at least two instances where your claim is immediately disproven.

Had Memories Pizza been a catering service and catered weddings... they would have been forced to cater to a gay wedding. Against their religious conscience.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down because they refused to cater a gay wedding.

The common theme here? "Cater gay marriages, or else."

The bakery broke the law.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that although Oregon law provides an exemption for religious institutions, it "does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion."

He added, "The bakery is not a religious institution under the law."

Of course they did, but now they have standing to sue the State of Oregon using citing the Hobby Lobby decision as precedent. That has become the benchmark case for businesses and religious freedom.

There comes a critical juncture where the law goes too far in dictating the beliefs of the man. That instance was a perfect example. Normally, I would say, "hey, serve them anyway." But I also as a religious individual understand the need to stick by the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I'm all for equal rights, so long as they apply to both parties, not just one.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is the problem Political Chick faces.

Her political party has one goal - which has mostly to do with shaping tax, regulatory and trade policy so that it favors a small class of wealthy Americans.

Problem is: you can't win a national election simply by promising tax and regulatory reform to a small group of people.

To get enough votes to win a national election, you need a populist message that speaks to the masses, the everyday worker who can't afford lobbyists, and doesn't care as much about trade policies and complicated regulatory policies.

For the Republican Party, the populism they use to reach the masses is centered upon religion, tradition and patriotism. This is why the Right needs to trick low-information voters into thinking that homosexuals don't merely want the same rights as heterosexuals but something much more sinister: they want to destroy Christianity and America.

You can't blame Political Chick for trying to fool people like this. She is an apparatchik for a political movement that has very specific goals. The movement is hoping to scare well-meaning idiots into the voting booth, haunted by ceaseless images of Bin Laden & illegal immigrant gay gym teachers ...

Tragically, these well-meaning idiots are going to come out of the voting booth and find the same world that was there when they went in. This is the world where gay people haven't destroyed Christianity, but the people Political Chick represents got a whole lot richer.

(God, if you are out there, I beg of you: please don't let these bastards keep using your image like this.)

"Her political party has one goal - which has mostly to do with shaping tax, regulatory and trade policy so that it favors a small class of wealthy Americans."

I stopped reading after that. There's no need to further confirm your unparalleled idiocy.