It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Seawytch]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

They don't believe we fall in love.

Sorry but the human emotion of love is not dependent upon marriage. If it were, I'd be married to my mom, my daughters, my grandkids, the Alabama Crimson Tide, a nice t-bone steak and Kate Upton's titties.

You don't know the difference between romantic and platonic love? You and Pops need to talk.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

 

[Pop23]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

They don't believe we fall in love.

Sorry but the human emotion of love is not dependent upon marriage. If it were, I'd be married to my mom, my daughters, my grandkids, the Alabama Crimson Tide, a nice t-bone steak and Kate Upton's titties.

You don't know the difference between romantic and platonic love? You and Pops need to talk.

Love is not a requirememt of marriage.

If you want it to be, then the State has a right to create that test.

Guess what, you'd lose.

 

[Pop23]

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

 

[Pop23]

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

As we can see from Boss's demonstration- he has quite a thing about shoving things up asses.

 

[Pop23]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

As we can see from Boss's demonstration- he has quite a thing about shoving things up asses.

If you continue your flirting, no one will take you seriously.

 

[Syriusly]

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

You have verified what we all have suspected.

That you are a troll who just wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

As we can see from Boss's demonstration- he has quite a thing about shoving things up asses.

If you continue your flirting, no one will take you seriously.

Poor Pops- this is what he thinks is flirting- obviously he doesn't get out much.

 

[Pop23]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

As we can see from Boss's demonstration- he has quite a thing about shoving things up asses.

If you continue your flirting, no one will take you seriously.

Poor Pops- this is what he thinks is flirting- obviously he doesn't get out much.

Not with gays obviously

 

[Pop23]

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

You have verified what we all have suspected.

That you are a troll who just wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

Civil rights, constitutionally protected are afforded to all.

You nimrods created the problem with no way of denying the ability of ALL to Marry.

Many genetically defective children in the future will have you to thank.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay, okay.....

I will happily withdraw all my objections to gay marriage if you hypocrites will simply stand up for my fundamental constitutional right to marry these big dirty milkers!

You have the right to marry her- and she has the right to marry you- now all you need is her consent

 

[Syriusly]

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

You have verified what we all have suspected.

That you are a troll who just wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

Civil rights, constitutionally protected are afforded to all.

You nimrods created the problem with no way of denying the ability of ALL to Marry.

Many genetically defective children in the future will have you to thank.

As you keep saying- quoting you= citing you.

With no evidence to support your claims.

12 years of legal marriage in Massachusetts- and still no siblings marrying.

And gay couples are still getting married- and you nimrods are still but hurt about it.

 

[Kobie]

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Well, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered that slippery slope.

 

[Seawytch]

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

Clean bloodlines? Wow, you really do sound like the racist of yesteryear.

Pops, if sibling marriages ever come to pass, I'll happily concede that you were right all along and the slippery slope exists.

I'm 100% positive that you will never get that concession.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

You have verified what we all have suspected.

That you are a troll who just wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

Civil rights, constitutionally protected are afforded to all.

You nimrods created the problem with no way of denying the ability of ALL to Marry.

Many genetically defective children in the future will have you to thank.

As you keep saying- quoting you= citing you.

With no evidence to support your claims.

12 years of legal marriage in Massachusetts- and still no siblings marrying.

And gay couples are still getting married- and you nimrods are still but hurt about it.

12 years HUH, wow your prospective of how long the future is is bizarre. But when you got no nut in the game.....

 

[Pop23]

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

Clean bloodlines? Wow, you really do sound like the racist of yesteryear.

Pops, if sibling marriages ever come to pass, I'll happily concede that you were right all along and the slippery slope exists.

I'm 100% positive that you will never get that concession.

Marriage IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right you simpleton. It's your argument that almost insures it.

Congratulations

You don't care if it happens or not. You've made that incredibly clear.

Name one other constitutionally protected civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Your arguments seem to have been a fraud from the beginning.

 

[Pop23]

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

I don't care. Didn't care before, still don't care. FILE YOUR CASE, bloviator.

Yeah, we realize that gays have no idea what that could cause, and really don't care cuz they got no skin in the future.

Oh look, more bloviating. You're filing when?

No bloviating. I spoke the truth. You verified what I've long suspected.

The ends justified the means.

Screw the attempt to keep track of clean bloodlines. A small group of vocal oddballs trumps the ability to insure genetically sound future generations.

Clean bloodlines? Wow, you really do sound like the racist of yesteryear.

.

Only you assume such racism.

You could care less about genetically deformed children as long as you get to lick *****.

 

[Montrovant]

Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word. Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?

I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.

Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it. In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it. I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

I didn't say the definition was different. I said the definition is the same. Are you having trouble reading today?

You said this :

The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual.

According to that quote, the word union has a different definition when used to describe an opposite gender couple than when used to describe a same gender couple. I have never seen or heard union defined to mean different things depending on the gender of the subjects. I am asking if you can show anywhere other than your own words where the word changes definition in that way.

If the definition of union is the same with regards to same sex couples and opposite sex couples than your quote above makes no sense. If it is not the same I would like to see where you get the idea the definition changes depending on the gender of the participants in the union.

Perhaps you are having trouble remembering your own words again.

*sigh* ...Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between "definition" and "meaning"?

The definition of "union" is "to join together" ...that's the definition. The MEANING depends on what context the word is being used in.

union ‎(pluralunions)

1. (countable) The act of uniting or joining two or more things into one.
2. (uncountable) The state of being united or joined.
3. (countable) That which is united, or made one; something formed by a combination or coalition of parts or members; a confederation; a consolidated body; a league.
4. (countable) A trade union; a workers' union.
5. (countable) A joint or other connection uniting parts of machinery, such as pipes.
6. (countable, set theory) The set containing all of the elements of two or more sets.
7. (countable) The act or state of marriage.
8. (uncountable, archaic, euphemistic) Sexual intercourse.
9. (countable, computing) A data structure that can store any of various items, but only one at a time.
10. (countable, now rare, archaic) A large, high-quality pearl.

When we are talking in context of matrimony and marital relationships, what is meant by a union? Well, traditionally, the "union of man and woman" was just that, the union of two genders as one in holy matrimony. Same genders can't be united because they are already united as genders, they are the same. So what is the context of union when it comes to same sex partners? It can't be anything other than intimate relations. Hence, it is the "joining together" (definition of union) of homosexual partners.

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple. You can argue that marriage must be between a man and woman by definition; I disagree but accept the argument. There is no definition of union whereby when relating to same sex couples it must be about sex while when relating to opposite sex couples, in the same context, it is about something other than sex.

Of course words can have different meanings and use different definitions depending on context. The problem is that you have decided that union has a different meaning for same sex couples and opposite sex couples in the same context.

A better analogy would be if you decided that when discussing Hispanics, a union is a grouping of workers, but when discussing Asians, a union is sex.

There is nothing in the definition of union which requires that it be about opposite sex couples when talking about romantic unions. You have made that up.