Chic-Fil-A is making history, and showing the power of the American people/voter.

[Gadawg73]

I'm all for a deal, let gays get married on condition that they stop those stupid "gay pride" parades.

Yeah, that sounds like America.
If you don't like gay pride parades, don't go to them. If you don't like gay marriage don't become a lesbian.
Hopefully they will soon be allowed to marry in Washington State.

Even most homosexuals are ashamed of those gay pride parades....

Never been to one and never will go to one.
Why go if they are so bad?

 

[Gadawg73]

Homosexual do not procreate.

Gee, imagine the evolutionary implications of that.. Almost like natural selection, removing certain genes from the species...

How does allowing them to marry affect heterosexuals procreating?

Try reading, idiot.



Look, you're a child throwing a tantrum, you are not a rational adult. But yes, breeding females are vital to the survival of the species. If the species doesn't reproduce, then extinction is the result.

Look, you want to drink cosmos with pink umbrellas, and will hold your breath until you turn blue if anyone questions you.

But evolution is a natural process and doesn't give a damn about how much Hollywood donates to the corrupt democrats. You can't buy legislators to change natural law to suit your desires.



Yes, you can recite talking points, what you CAN'T do is think. Structure is served by society ENCOURAGING males to remain with breeding females. This is why every last society on Earth has independently established marriage, because it serves a purpose in the survival of the species.

I know you don't give a damn about science or facts, you want what you want because you want it; but marriage developed to promote a stable and successful clan/tribe/society.



You're an idiot, attempting to apply your political agenda to biology.



Who cares?

Biology isn't altered by political bullying.

And their charitable arm has refused to continue funding any organization that is opposed to gay marriage.

That's not really what they said, but who cares?

You lose. Suck it up. I will shake your hand at the 50 yard line and say "good game".
Been there, done that, the fans wore the T shirts.

Reality isn't changed by political thuggary. You might well intimidate Chick-fil-A, but the anthropological and biological imperative for marriage isn't altered. You have that Stalinist mindset that if you force someone to act against their nature at the point of a bayonet, that you've changed nature. Stalin butchered 65 million people, yet human nature remained unchanged.

Do you really believe this shit you post? That allowing gays to marry will somehow affect the natural balance of the human race?
You claim it but no where do you offer ANY EVIDENCE of it.
In my world, where you would not last 10 seconds, PROOF is required.
All you have is hot air dog squeeze.

 

[beagle9]

I'm all for a deal, let gays get married on condition that they stop those stupid "gay pride" parades.

Them getting married in what many people see as a violation of what the one man and one woman traditional religious concept of marriage in America is or means to most (imho) causes fear amongst the oppositional majority, who feel that it will embolden the gay's even farther in the extreme, and this because of what people see as is found in the examples of extremism that are illustrated in those wild parades in which they put on to display what ?

I guess you are one who doesn't like the pride parades, and wonder if the parades accurately represent these mindsets and lifestyles in which are lived.

Is it also seen as a mockery to religious traditional marriage by you, and this in regards to it being a religious contract between a man and a woman, who then will go onto create children and become a family in the religious sense of what marriage is supposed to be for that family, in which is also supported in the Biblical sense to all whom still believe in this way? So when a man and a man or a woman and a woman attempt to use the holy matrimony as their contract in life as well, does it dilute or destroy the Christian meaning and old traditional meaning of marriage in the eyes of the majority in this nation, and if so should the majority get their way in keeping marriage sacred between a man and a woman by vote there of ?

It is a delema brought forward now, and it will always be a delema or a confusion for most, if a vote does not settle the issue once and for all during their lifetimes, and this as to be found within this time period that is lived by this generation, just as it should be settled up until another day comes, and/or a different generation takes over that may see it all otherwise.

That generation may be here now, but who knows if a vote is not taken over these matters, and is then honored when it is taken over these matters ?

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm all for a deal, let gays get married on condition that they stop those stupid "gay pride" parades.

Them getting married in what many people see as a violation of what the one man and one woman traditional religious concept of marriage in America is or means to most (imho) causes fear amongst the oppositional majority, who feel that it will embolden the gay's even farther in the extreme, and this because of what people see as is found in the examples of extremism that are illustrated in those wild parades in which they put on to display what ?

I guess you are one who doesn't like the pride parades, and wonder if the parades accurately represent these mindsets and lifestyles in which are lived.

Is it also seen as a mockery to religious traditional marriage by you, and this in regards to it being a religious contract between a man and a woman, who then will go onto create children and become a family in the religious sense of what marriage is supposed to be for that family, in which is also supported in the Biblical sense to all whom still believe in this way? So when a man and a man or a woman and a woman attempt to use the holy matrimony as their contract in life as well, does it dilute or destroy the Christian meaning and old traditional meaning of marriage in the eyes of the majority in this nation, and if so should the majority get their way in keeping marriage sacred between a man and a woman by vote there of ?

It is a delema brought forward now, and it will always be a delema or a confusion for most, if a vote does not settle the issue once and for all during their lifetimes, and this as to be found within this time period that is lived by this generation, just as it should be settled up until another day comes, and/or a different generation takes over that may see it all otherwise.

That generation may be here now, but who knows if a vote is not taken over these matters, and is then honored when it is taken over these matters ?

The gay boogeyman has you skeered!
OH NO, the gay is going to infect you!
Heavens to mergatroid, EXIT STAGE LEFT.
Son, you need an English course first and foremost.

 

[bodecea]

I'm all for a deal, let gays get married on condition that they stop those stupid "gay pride" parades.

Why? Do they bother you that much?

 

[bodecea]

I'm all for a deal, let gays get married on condition that they stop those stupid "gay pride" parades.

Yeah, that sounds like America.
If you don't like gay pride parades, don't go to them. If you don't like gay marriage don't become a lesbian.
Hopefully they will soon be allowed to marry in Washington State.

Even most homosexuals are ashamed of those gay pride parades....

How many have YOU been to?

 

[ima]

Homosexual do not procreate.

Gee, imagine the evolutionary implications of that.. Almost like natural selection, removing certain genes from the species...

Sorry folks, but homosexuals reproduce all the time, the most famous being Melissa Ethridge, who got sperm from David Crosby and had a child.

And anyways, if you think that gays can't reproduce and that takes out the gay gene, why is there a gay gene to start with if they're not reproducing?
So not only are you 2 wrong, but you're stupid as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you really believe this shit you post? That allowing gays to marry will somehow affect the natural balance of the human race?

No idiot, Marriage reflects the reality of the human condition. You are throwing tantrums to demand that reality change to meet your desires.

You claim it but no where do you offer ANY EVIDENCE of it.
In my world, where you would not last 10 seconds, PROOF is required.
All you have is hot air dog squeeze.

Son, you're a moron who can't follow elementary logic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry folks, but homosexuals reproduce all the time, the most famous being Melissa Ethridge, who got sperm from David Crosby and had a child.

And anyways, if you think that gays can't reproduce and that takes out the gay gene, why is there a gay gene to start with if they're not reproducing?
So not only are you 2 wrong, but you're stupid as well.

So, in your alleged mind, artificial insemination is a product of natural selection...

ROFL

 

[ima]

Sorry folks, but homosexuals reproduce all the time, the most famous being Melissa Ethridge, who got sperm from David Crosby and had a child.

And anyways, if you think that gays can't reproduce and that takes out the gay gene, why is there a gay gene to start with if they're not reproducing?
So not only are you 2 wrong, but you're stupid as well.

So, in your alleged mind, artificial insemination is a product of natural selection...

ROFL

Natural selection is producing gays, even if gays couldn't reproduce. Sorry, you fail epically, please try again.
And anyways, naturally selecting the male sperm donor goes on all the time, it's called dating!

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...? Or are you just a flaming homophobe?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Natural selection is producing gays, even if gays couldn't reproduce.

ROFL

You're really quite stupid, you know that?

Perhaps that's why you developed homosexual tendancies, to remove the stupidity inherent in your genetic structure from the species...

Sorry, you fail epically, please try again.
And anyways, naturally selecting the male sperm donor goes on all the time, it's called dating!

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...? Or are you just a flaming homophobe?

You are a child who substitutes your wants for reality.

 

[ima]

Natural selection is producing gays, even if gays couldn't reproduce.

ROFL

You're really quite stupid, you know that?

Perhaps that's why you developed homosexual tendancies, to remove the stupidity inherent in your genetic structure from the species...

Sorry, you fail epically, please try again.
And anyways, naturally selecting the male sperm donor goes on all the time, it's called dating!

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...? Or are you just a flaming homophobe?

You are a child who substitutes your wants for reality.

Doh! I forgot, being gay is a choice.

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doh! I forgot, being gay is a choice.

You are jaw-droppingly stupid, seriously.

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...?

Do you drool in public?

 

[bodecea]

Natural selection is producing gays, even if gays couldn't reproduce.

ROFL

You're really quite stupid, you know that?

Perhaps that's why you developed homosexual tendancies, to remove the stupidity inherent in your genetic structure from the species...

Sorry, you fail epically, please try again.
And anyways, naturally selecting the male sperm donor goes on all the time, it's called dating!

So do you have something against heteros using artificial insemination, or surrogates...? Or are you just a flaming homophobe?

You are a child who substitutes your wants for reality.

What can we legally do remove you from the gene pool.....? It's the right thing to do for the sake of the species.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What can we legally do remove you from the gene pool.....? It's the right thing to do for the sake of the species.

You've already done humanity a huge favor by option out of the gene pool. The species is stronger for it.

 

[bodecea]

What can we legally do remove you from the gene pool.....? It's the right thing to do for the sake of the species.

You've already done humanity a huge favor by option out of the gene pool. The species is stronger for it.

Oopsie...Uncensored is wrong again.

 

[Gadawg73]

Even the Southern Baptists state that homosexuality is same sex attraction and they are born with it. They call it "struggling with same sex attraction'.
Those of us that truly have been trained and educated thoroughly in The Bible always fall back on "Carry one another's burdens".
And it would be folks that judge and condemn that lay that burden.
Those that claim they are Christians follow that and that only on this subject. We have to also carry their load and fight for their rights.
If we as Christians can not stand up for the full rights of homosexuals then we fall short of what The Bible teaches us to do.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you really believe this shit you post? That allowing gays to marry will somehow affect the natural balance of the human race?

No idiot, Marriage reflects the reality of the human condition. You are throwing tantrums to demand that reality change to meet your desires.

You claim it but no where do you offer ANY EVIDENCE of it.
In my world, where you would not last 10 seconds, PROOF is required.
All you have is hot air dog squeeze.

Son, you're a moron who can't follow elementary logic.

Another rant of childish name calling because you HAVE NO PROOF of anything you post.
Tell us oh wise one how the reality of YOUR human condition changes if gays are allowed to be married.
I will wait until pigs fly for your answer. You have no evidence and you know it.
Not throwing any tantrums, gay marriage affects me in no way. I am 58 year old white straight male that practices conservatism by challenging big government advocates like yourself.
You are a closet liberal.

 

[beagle9]

Even the Southern Baptists state that homosexuality is same sex attraction and they are born with it. They call it "struggling with same sex attraction'.
Those of us that truly have been trained and educated thoroughly in The Bible always fall back on "Carry one another's burdens".
And it would be folks that judge and condemn that lay that burden.
Those that claim they are Christians follow that and that only on this subject. We have to also carry their load and fight for their rights.
If we as Christians can not stand up for the full rights of homosexuals then we fall short of what The Bible teaches us to do.

Romans 2 verse 19 to 32...Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what you think it means when read it either leading up to and/or beyond the area of mention... We can have a little study on it together if want to.. I am unsure exactly about what all it is saying within the context of this chapter there in, because it gets into the law and such as to be reckoned with in the chapter of Romans coupled with one being saved by his or her faith, and the understanding of that faith upon where it stands, and the law where it stands or has stood, and what it means to us in our daily lives now.

I know that we are not living under the law or by the letter of the law, but instead we are saved by his sacrifice, and through his grace and his mercy through Christ Jesus amen, in which through our spirit he doth speak to us daily through our faith in him, wherefore about these things in which we wonder about and wrestle with daily, be it within our hearts and within our minds. Now does this give us the reasoning to accept somehow sin openly within and around us in our daily lives now, or to allow it openly in and around our families in their daily lives now (no it does not imho), and should we not teach that some things are then ok according to the word if they are ok, but others are not ok in accordance with sin as it is spoken of within these chapters as not being ok, and is rather sin or being sinful that leads to futher seperation between us and our Lord who hath saved us ?

Where is it then that the lines are to be drawn in respect to it all I wonder ?

Should we be tasked with seperating ourselves always from sin as best that we can in our lives (all of us), but to do it by way of teaching in so that we not leave anyone behind if at all possible ? Should we allow sin to consume us totally, wherefore we lose sight of God and our Lord altogether, because where we would therefore choose to go, it is not somewhere that anyone would want to go with us ?

 

[Gadawg73]

Even the Southern Baptists state that homosexuality is same sex attraction and they are born with it. They call it "struggling with same sex attraction'.
Those of us that truly have been trained and educated thoroughly in The Bible always fall back on "Carry one another's burdens".
And it would be folks that judge and condemn that lay that burden.
Those that claim they are Christians follow that and that only on this subject. We have to also carry their load and fight for their rights.
If we as Christians can not stand up for the full rights of homosexuals then we fall short of what The Bible teaches us to do.

Romans 2 verse 19 to 32...Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what you think it means when read it either leading up to and/or beyond the area of mention... We can have a little study on it together if want to.. I am unsure exactly about what all it is saying within the context of this chapter there in, because it gets into the law and such as to be reckoned with in the chapter of Romans coupled with one being saved by his or her faith, and the understanding of that faith upon where it stands, and the law where it stands or has stood, and what it means to us in our daily lives now.

I know that we are not living under the law or by the letter of the law, but instead we are saved by his sacrifice, and through his grace and his mercy through Christ Jesus amen, in which through our spirit he doth speak to us daily through our faith in him, wherefore about these things in which we wonder about and wrestle with daily, be it within our hearts and within our minds. Now does this give us the reasoning to accept somehow sin openly within and around us in our daily lives now, or to allow it openly in and around our families in their daily lives now (no it does not imho), and should we not teach that some things are then ok according to the word if they are ok, but others are not ok in accordance with sin as it is spoken of within these chapters as not being ok, and is rather sin or being sinful that leads to futher seperation between us and our Lord who hath saved us ?

Where is it then that the lines are to be drawn in respect to it all I wonder ?

Should we be tasked with seperating ourselves always from sin as best that we can in our lives (all of us), but to do it by way of teaching in so that we not leave anyone behind if at all possible ? Should we allow sin to consume us totally, wherefore we lose sight of God and our Lord altogether, because where we would therefore choose to go, it is not somewhere that anyone would want to go with us ?

Love thy neighbor and carry one anothers burden.
Your sin is your business and someone else's sin is none of your business.
It is your business to love thy neighbor and carry one another's burden.
If you truly are a Christian.