Growing support for same sex marriages from all religions. (bar evangelicals)

[Andylusion]

Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas | PRRI

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, support for same-sex marriage has increased substantially. Currently, more than six in ten (61%) Americans say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry legally, while only about half as many (30%) are opposed.

Strength of support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, while strength of opposition has fallen in nearly equal measure. Today, Americans who strongly favor same-sex marriage outnumber those who strongly oppose it by more than a two-to-one margin (30% vs. 14%). In 2007, only 13% of the public strongly favored same-sex marriage, while nearly one-quarter (24%) strongly opposed it.1 Much of this shift has occurred within the last five years. As recently as 2013, more than four in ten (42%) Americans opposed same-sex marriage, including about one in four (23%) who strongly opposed it.2 Over the last five years, strong supporters of same-sex marriage increased only modestly, from 25% to 30%.

Even the majority of Muslims are supportive. it looks like the battle is won in the US.

This is expected. Evangelicals are true Christians, who believe that G-d determines right and wrong, not man.

All other religions are false, and thus prone to sway with the opinion of the masses.

Remember, the Bible itself says that true Christians will be persecuted before the end, and that the rest of humanity will become part of the one-world religion.

As far as I can tell, you just posted direct evidence supporting that.

So a billion hindus are living in sin ?

All people live in sin. All people. There is no perfect person anywhere. That's why Jesus our Lord, came to redeem everyone that came to him.

There is no 'sinless' person on this Earth, including me. That's why I need Jesus Christ the Lord, myself.

 

[ding]

The law rendered your view irrelevant.

Technically it hasn't. No law was written.

But let's say there was a law that was written? So what? We also had laws which said slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

And we have a court ruling which say that human life does not begin at conception.

So just because there are laws or rulings that doesn't meant they are correct of logical.

Marriage is not a concept that can be proven correct or incorrect in an ultimate sense you fucking dunce. All thats relevant is the way that it is recognized because its a societal construct, religious and secular.

Does it escape you that marriage is a human invention....or??

lol logical and correct

Which is why the government shouldn't be writing laws for or against marriage or have any say so in it whatsoever. And if they do, it should be done at the state level so we can see exactly which outcomes produce the greatest success.

Success of outcomes is not a valid reasoning to deny equal access to government institutions, and since a main component of marriage is sex and attraction, when a human is being honest (read:not a weaselly dipshit), saying "gays have equal rights cuz they can marry opposite sex!!" is an intellectually dishonest counter and has been ruled same by your superiors. Now whine.

We live in a shared society with shared outcomes.

The main attraction for marriage is love.

You don't need a government to define marriage. Unless of course that government believes it is in societies best interest to do so. Which in that case nature has defined marriage as one man and one woman. It is in the best interest of children to have a male and a female role model.

I am being honest, GT. The only one who is acting weasely is you because you can't argue this like an adult. probably because you have no response to my arguments.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

Sure they can. Just like everyone else. The restriction to marry is the same for all. One man one woman. You can be gay and get married the same as everyone else. That was not true for blacks after the civil war.

That is just hateful horseshit. I posted this before but apparently it needs repeating....

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

 

[ding]

Winning arguments get repeated until you make an argument which defeats it. Deal with it.

Which is why you want to make this about something it is not.

I don't have any thing against gay people at all. I have friends that are gay.

You need to make it personal because you have no logical response.

If you think you can present the pressing reason behind being pro opposite sex marriage and anti same sex marriage without being a bigoted douchelord, youre incorrect.

Further, I dont argue with you in earnst because you have the intellectual wherewithall of a teenager. Which is evident fron past dealings, as well as being one of those slippery tongued weasels who think that GAYS having access to STRAIGHT marriage is some novel point in the debate when it completely dodges the point. Its toddler brained fucking nonsense, and its now been defeated in court.

Wanna know why?

Heres why, dummy. Because a part of being married is typically SEX and ATTRACTION, dingerred.

You can dip, duck dodge and weasel around that being the case ~ but its the same kinda douchey vacuous bullshit that makes your debate skills bottom tier.

If you think you can present the pressing reason behind being pro opposite sex marriage and anti same sex marriage without being a bigoted douchelord, youre incorrect.

I'm not pro opposite sex marriage. I am pro-standards. I did present the reasoning. You have failed to defeat it.

No one has denied a person who prefers to have sex with the same gender from marrying someone from the opposite gender. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex. You might as well being arguing for polygamy which is also a preference without a class of people.

Further, I dont argue with you in earnst because you have the intellectual wherewithall of a teenager. Which is evident fron past dealings, as well as being one of those slippery tongued weasels who think that GAYS having access to STRAIGHT marriage is some novel point in the debate when it completely dodges the point. Its toddler brained fucking nonsense, and its now been defeated in court.

You need to attack me personally because you have no logical argument. So you lash out because you are angry.

Wanna know why?

Heres why, dummy. Because a part of being married is typically SEX and ATTRACTION, dingerred.

You can dip, duck dodge and weasel around that being the case ~ but its the same kinda douchey vacuous bullshit that makes your debate skills bottom tier.

And none of that stops them from being together, GT.

Cool story dingerred...Im glad that I respect your gay friends' right to marry one another while youre a two faced twat about it...but you arent that bright so......oh well!

I'm not a two faced twat about it. I have very good reasons for my beliefs. Reasons you have yet to defeat which is why you are acting like a child who isn't getting his way instead of an adult who is having a conversation with someone who has an honest difference of opinion.

Your reasons are vacuous and disengenuous. Theyre also over. This is me and gay couples gloating in the face of your ignorance....hopefully the butthurt continues to flow through you. I much enjoy it.

Like I said before, we had laws where it was legal to own people and treat them as property, GT. So in the end, the outcomes will dictate the truth in this matter. Error cannot stand. Eventually it fails. Normalizing gay lifestyles will have predictable surprises.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

See post 303 dumb fuck

 

[ding]

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

Sure they can. Just like everyone else. The restriction to marry is the same for all. One man one woman. You can be gay and get married the same as everyone else. That was not true for blacks after the civil war.

That is just hateful horseshit. I posted this before but apparently it needs repeating....

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

Nothing hateful in my opinions. Just yours.

 

[G.T.]

The law rendered your view irrelevant.

Technically it hasn't. No law was written.

But let's say there was a law that was written? So what? We also had laws which said slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

And we have a court ruling which say that human life does not begin at conception.

So just because there are laws or rulings that doesn't meant they are correct of logical.

Marriage is not a concept that can be proven correct or incorrect in an ultimate sense you fucking dunce. All thats relevant is the way that it is recognized because its a societal construct, religious and secular.

Does it escape you that marriage is a human invention....or??

lol logical and correct

Which is why the government shouldn't be writing laws for or against marriage or have any say so in it whatsoever. And if they do, it should be done at the state level so we can see exactly which outcomes produce the greatest success.

Success of outcomes is not a valid reasoning to deny equal access to government institutions, and since a main component of marriage is sex and attraction, when a human is being honest (read:not a weaselly dipshit), saying "gays have equal rights cuz they can marry opposite sex!!" is an intellectually dishonest counter and has been ruled same by your superiors. Now whine.

We live in a shared society with shared outcomes.

The main attraction for marriage is love.

You don't need a government to define marriage. Unless of course that government believes it is in societies best interest to do so. Which in that case nature has defined marriage as one man and one woman. It is in the best interest of children to have a male and a female role model.

I am being honest, GT. The only one who is acting weasely is you because you can't argue this like an adult. probably because you have no response to my arguments.

I defeated your arguments..you can read them in your dingerred inner voice and spazz out all you like. Slaveowners took a profit cut when it was abolished...."outcomes" are subjective, and dingerred is a disengenuous twat who thinks allowing gays the right to marry straight is fair enough...

Its toddlerbrained, and defeated in court.

 

[ding]

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

See post 303 dumb fuck

Thanks for proving my point, bro.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Jesus fucking Christ! Can you really be that god damned obtuse!! They were denied the right to marry the person of their choice who they are sexually and romantically attracted to!

The restriction is applied equally. That's all that is legally required for equality.

Just because you have a sexual preference that does not negate the equality of the law.

Bullshit ! Read Obergefell. You have no fucking idea what you 're talking about. Choice is very much a part of constitutional law.

 

[ding]

Technically it hasn't. No law was written.

But let's say there was a law that was written? So what? We also had laws which said slaves were property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

And we have a court ruling which say that human life does not begin at conception.

So just because there are laws or rulings that doesn't meant they are correct of logical.

Marriage is not a concept that can be proven correct or incorrect in an ultimate sense you fucking dunce. All thats relevant is the way that it is recognized because its a societal construct, religious and secular.

Does it escape you that marriage is a human invention....or??

lol logical and correct

Which is why the government shouldn't be writing laws for or against marriage or have any say so in it whatsoever. And if they do, it should be done at the state level so we can see exactly which outcomes produce the greatest success.

Success of outcomes is not a valid reasoning to deny equal access to government institutions, and since a main component of marriage is sex and attraction, when a human is being honest (read:not a weaselly dipshit), saying "gays have equal rights cuz they can marry opposite sex!!" is an intellectually dishonest counter and has been ruled same by your superiors. Now whine.

We live in a shared society with shared outcomes.

The main attraction for marriage is love.

You don't need a government to define marriage. Unless of course that government believes it is in societies best interest to do so. Which in that case nature has defined marriage as one man and one woman. It is in the best interest of children to have a male and a female role model.

I am being honest, GT. The only one who is acting weasely is you because you can't argue this like an adult. probably because you have no response to my arguments.

I defeated your arguments..you can read them in your dingerred inner voice and spazz out all you like. Slaveowners took a profit cut when it was abolished...."outcomes" are subjective, and dingerred is a disengenuous twat who thinks allowing gays the right to marry straight is fair enough...

Its toddlerbrained, and defeated in court.

That's your ego talking. It will demand payment later.

 

[G.T.]

If you think you can present the pressing reason behind being pro opposite sex marriage and anti same sex marriage without being a bigoted douchelord, youre incorrect.

Further, I dont argue with you in earnst because you have the intellectual wherewithall of a teenager. Which is evident fron past dealings, as well as being one of those slippery tongued weasels who think that GAYS having access to STRAIGHT marriage is some novel point in the debate when it completely dodges the point. Its toddler brained fucking nonsense, and its now been defeated in court.

Wanna know why?

Heres why, dummy. Because a part of being married is typically SEX and ATTRACTION, dingerred.

You can dip, duck dodge and weasel around that being the case ~ but its the same kinda douchey vacuous bullshit that makes your debate skills bottom tier.

If you think you can present the pressing reason behind being pro opposite sex marriage and anti same sex marriage without being a bigoted douchelord, youre incorrect.

I'm not pro opposite sex marriage. I am pro-standards. I did present the reasoning. You have failed to defeat it.

No one has denied a person who prefers to have sex with the same gender from marrying someone from the opposite gender. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex. You might as well being arguing for polygamy which is also a preference without a class of people.

Further, I dont argue with you in earnst because you have the intellectual wherewithall of a teenager. Which is evident fron past dealings, as well as being one of those slippery tongued weasels who think that GAYS having access to STRAIGHT marriage is some novel point in the debate when it completely dodges the point. Its toddler brained fucking nonsense, and its now been defeated in court.

You need to attack me personally because you have no logical argument. So you lash out because you are angry.

Wanna know why?

Heres why, dummy. Because a part of being married is typically SEX and ATTRACTION, dingerred.

You can dip, duck dodge and weasel around that being the case ~ but its the same kinda douchey vacuous bullshit that makes your debate skills bottom tier.

And none of that stops them from being together, GT.

Cool story dingerred...Im glad that I respect your gay friends' right to marry one another while youre a two faced twat about it...but you arent that bright so......oh well!

I'm not a two faced twat about it. I have very good reasons for my beliefs. Reasons you have yet to defeat which is why you are acting like a child who isn't getting his way instead of an adult who is having a conversation with someone who has an honest difference of opinion.

Your reasons are vacuous and disengenuous. Theyre also over. This is me and gay couples gloating in the face of your ignorance....hopefully the butthurt continues to flow through you. I much enjoy it.

Like I said before, we had laws where it was legal to own people and treat them as property, GT. So in the end, the outcomes will dictate the truth in this matter. Error cannot stand. Eventually it fails. Normalizing gay lifestyles will have predictable surprises.

And theres that bigotry right there ^^

 

[Lysistrata]

Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas | PRRI

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, support for same-sex marriage has increased substantially. Currently, more than six in ten (61%) Americans say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry legally, while only about half as many (30%) are opposed.
't b
Strength of support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, while strength of opposition has fallen in nearly equal measure. Today, Americans who strongly favor same-sex marriage outnumber those who strongly oppose it by more than a two-to-one margin (30% vs. 14%). In 2007, only 13% of the public strongly favored same-sex marriage, while nearly one-quarter (24%) strongly opposed it.1 Much of this shift has occurred within the last five years. As recently as 2013, more than four in ten (42%) Americans opposed same-sex marriage, including about one in four (23%) who strongly opposed it.2 Over the last five years, strong supporters of same-sex marriage increased only modestly, from 25% to 30%.

Even the majority of Muslims are supportive. it looks like the battle is won in the US.

Just what is the point of one group of people deciding that another group of people can't, or shouldn't be, legally married? Why would any sane person have an interest in this "question,' anyway"?

Apparently its a threat to marriage and the survival of the species. Not sure what the threat is but my marriage has only ever been threatened by my shortcomings. Shortcomings that Mrs Tainant has been helpful in pointing out, at length, on a regular basis.

The thing about us pesky heterosexual folks is that we love and care for each other. I am sure that Mrs. Tainant keeps you in line and that you, in turn, keeps her in line. What we all are dealing with is people who cannot keep human sexuality in line.

Sending all blessings to you and Mrs. Tainant. It seems that you two have heterosexuality figured out. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Love you folks!

PS: the people who are against LBGTs, are the same people who can't figure out the basics of being in a two-sex relationship.

 

[G.T.]

Cat's out of the bag. "teh gays are contageous, dont normalize their "lifestyles!""

Dingerred = homophobe, case close and its a wrap, coach.

Next?

 

[ding]

Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

If you have to call your opponent names and disparage his character, then that means you don't believe you have defeated his argument.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

See post 303 dumb fuck

Thanks for proving my point, bro.

Are you so delusional as to think that I somehow proved your point? What point is that again?

 

[ding]

Honest men can have honest differences of opinions.

If you have truth on your side you argue facts. If you have logic on your side you argue reason. If you have neither, you resort to name calling.

 

[ding]

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

See post 303 dumb fuck

Thanks for proving my point, bro.

Are you so delusional as to think that I somehow proved your point? What point is that again?

That you resort to name calling because you know you have been beaten.

 

[G.T.]

Dingerred, you are not an opponent. Youre a little boy being lectured to.

You self owned, you did the typical freudian slip and fell out of your equality under the law narrative and into your homophobic "normalize gay lifestyles" narrative.

Snakes are gunna snake. They always do...ladies and gentlemen, I was proud to be of assistance in these matters.

Have a great evening!!

 

[ding]

Cat's out of the bag. "teh gays are contageous, dont normalize their "lifestyles!""

Dingerred = homophobe, case close and its a wrap, coach.

Next?

Says the guy that whenever he insults someone calls them a faggot.

Like you think that is a compliment, amirite?

Defending gay marriage doesn't redeem your true feeling towards gays, GT.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

See post 303 dumb fuck

Thanks for proving my point, bro.

Are you so delusional as to think that I somehow proved your point? What point is that again?

That you resort to name calling because you know you have been beaten.

Not name calling .An observation. What was your point now?