Killing Homosexual Marriage

[JimBowie1958]

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

The real problem here is the dishonesty. If you go back and read the replies from the start of this thread, you see a pattern of dishonesty in discourse from page 1. Over and over, I have to correct someone who is either misquoting me or taking me out of context, or even interjecting totally crazy shit that I never said but implying I said it. They try to morph your arguments into something crazy they can attack and a lot of people don't know how to deal with it, so they get away with this and feel emboldened.

The other thing that is prevalent is their bigotry and hypocrisy. They assume because I am a conservative, I must fit this 'stereotype' they've concocted for all things conservative. They don't judge me by what I say, it doesn't matter what I say, it's all about their perception based on a bigoted stereotype and I guarantee that attribute transfers to their personal relationships.

Yeah, I see it every fricking day. These militant fags cant speak unless it is a lie.

 

[Pop23]

And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it. If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals. Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.

'Normal' homosexuals are not trying to attack Christianity, but the militant leadership is. The mouth-breathing Gay Mafioso types that demand everything for them and **** you are giving the entire gay community a bad name and losing a great deal of sympathy ac ross the board.

And of course you will predictably deny all this, which is fine by me as you guys are making the case for me with little effort on my part.

Christianity is also part of the marketing ploy.

If they can get you into a christian moral discussion, you lose by default.

An easy distraction

Marriage is a State license.

It's a trap far to many who opposed fell into.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

 

[Montrovant]

And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it. If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals. Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.

'Normal' homosexuals are not trying to attack Christianity, but the militant leadership is. The mouth-breathing Gay Mafioso types that demand everything for them and **** you are giving the entire gay community a bad name and losing a great deal of sympathy ac ross the board.

And of course you will predictably deny all this, which is fine by me as you guys are making the case for me with little effort on my part.

Unfortunately, with any group you'll find some vocal assholes that give others a bad name. Look at the backlash toward police of late. Yes, there have been police abuses and they need to be addressed....but deciding that all police are corrupt, abusive bastards? That's ridiculous.

I'm sure there are homosexuals who attack Christianity. I don't think it's a very large number who do so. I also would guess that there are things you would consider an attack on Christianity that I would not.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Unfortunately, with any group you'll find some vocal assholes that give others a bad name. Look at the backlash toward police of late. Yes, there have been police abuses and they need to be addressed....but deciding that all police are corrupt, abusive bastards? That's ridiculous.

I'm sure there are homosexuals who attack Christianity. I don't think it's a very large number who do so. I also would guess that there are things you would consider an attack on Christianity that I would not.

The problem is that the militant homos that hate Christianity are the ones in the 'chattering class' and they set the tone for the publics perception of what it means to be a homosexual.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You seem to be equating homosexuality with male on male anal sex, something I see many people opposed to homosexuality do. Unless, of course, you have a different meaning for unsanitary. Plenty of heterosexuals engage in 'unsanitary' sex as well.
I'm also curious about just how many civilizations ban homosexuality. I think 'almost every' is a strong mischaracterization of the facts.

 

[Boss]

Let me repeat.

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

So- the only reason why you can think of objecting to it is based upon 'morality'

As Pop's has pointed out repeatedly- why do you assume that there would be sex in the marriage?

Secondly- the courts have always rejected 'morality' as a reason for a law- look to Loving v. Virginia- in which the State claimed that among the reasons the State had a ban on mixed race marriages was 'morality' or 'evils'

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages

And of course the courts rejected the 'morality' claims in cases against same gender marriage:

(“The issue before the Court . . . does not turn on the religious or moral debate over intimate
same-sex relationships, but rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion
of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples.”).


Unlike yourself- I can think of other reasons- other than 'morality' - which is of course nothing more than a subjective feeling that varies from individual to individual- to oppose a mother marrying her son.

And so do the courts

Wisconsin:
For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

I don't have to convince you that there is a valid legal reason to oppose incestuous marriages. The courts already recognize that there are.

Unlike yourself- I can think of other reasons- other than 'morality' - which is of course nothing more than a subjective feeling that varies from individual to individual- to oppose a mother marrying her son.

This "feeling" you are talking about is morality. I am sorry you don't recognize it but that's all it is. You are absolutely correct on most court rulings because laws are often established on the basis of morality and struck down by the court on the basis of liberty.

So you've not presented a valid compelling reason, just your moral viewpoint which (by the criteria given) can't be the basis of argument for legal standing. Telling me you don't have to convince me of a valid legal reason because the courts have decided is a bit of a cop out as well. You're not giving a reason, you are pointing to the court and law and saying... hey, it's illegal, that's why it's illegal! Why is it illegal? because the court said it was illegal. Why did the court say it was illegal? Because they felt like it should be illegal. Why do they feel it should be illegal? Because people just know it should be illegal.

Wisconsin:
For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

And this is purely a moral-based determination. In fact, the very same arguments have been presented against gay marriage. Why do these arguments fail for gay marriage but are valid for incestophile marriage or polygamy? MORALITY... that's the only reason. You have nothing else.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on my part? He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on my part? He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.

It was a shift from present tense to past tense and that is supposed to be a seismic indicator of the dude's character?

That is a load of horse shit.

 

[Montrovant]

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on my part? He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.

It was a shift from present tense to past tense and that is supposed to be a seismic indicator of the dude's character?

That is a load of horse shit.

Who said anything about 'seismic indicator'? It is an example of a clear lie. There are others, such as the one Syriusly posted. He complained about his opponents in this argument being dishonest and hypocritical. You don't think pointing out examples of his own dishonesty is appropriate in that situation?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You seem to be equating homosexuality with male on male anal sex, something I see many people opposed to homosexuality do. Unless, of course, you have a different meaning for unsanitary. Plenty of heterosexuals engage in 'unsanitary' sex as well.
I'm also curious about just how many civilizations ban homosexuality. I think 'almost every' is a strong mischaracterization of the facts.

Anything that is not basic penis-to-vagina sex is sodomy. Seriously, some woman giving a dude oral sex is heterosexual but it is still nasty. That is why in my generation that was something one did not demand from ones wife but maybe a hand job, oral sex was for whores.

Young Millenials think it is sanitary because they learned it from some perv in sex miseducation class who told them it was sanitary and it is NOT. All kinds of nasty bacteria develop in the genital area during the day while the moist area is in darkness from clothing.

But the clear impression I have had is that sodomy is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals for the basic fact that homosexuals have more sex than heterosexuals and have more variations with partners than heterosexuals.

This makes the homosexual community the superhighway of disease in any nation, the ancient curse of the Gods.

As to an example of a ethnic group that banned fags, Ancient Greece did for a long time, but eventually they lost those old traditional inhibitions and began to actually prefer sex with young boys prior to Alexander the Greats assuming power. The Greek demographics began to collapse almost immediately. After making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and Justinian's reforms the Greek birthrate took off once again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on my part? He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.

It was a shift from present tense to past tense and that is supposed to be a seismic indicator of the dude's character?

That is a load of horse shit.

Who said anything about 'seismic indicator'? It is an example of a clear lie. There are others, such as the one Syriusly posted. He complained about his opponents in this argument being dishonest and hypocritical. You don't think pointing out examples of his own dishonesty is appropriate in that situation?

It was not a lie. It was at best an editing disagreement, sheesh.

 

[Boss]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

Well yeah, asswipe... when there are 5,000 accusations made per thread of things I supposedly said but didn't say... I am bound to make an error now and then.

Of course, in CONTEXT (which you are oblivious to) the fact that I prefaced my comment with "I am starting to think" should imply (to most rational people) that I wasn't thinking that previously and haven't thought it before. Nor have I indicated I fully think that now. There is also a huge gaping difference between condemning homosexual activity and "rejecting gays" which was the accusation.

So again... thank you very much for illustrating the level of dishonesty in discourse goes on around here daily, but I don't think Jim needed an example.

 

[Montrovant]

You're welcome to that opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.

You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.

What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on my part? He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.

It was a shift from present tense to past tense and that is supposed to be a seismic indicator of the dude's character?

That is a load of horse shit.

Who said anything about 'seismic indicator'? It is an example of a clear lie. There are others, such as the one Syriusly posted. He complained about his opponents in this argument being dishonest and hypocritical. You don't think pointing out examples of his own dishonesty is appropriate in that situation?

It was not a lie. It was at best an editing disagreement, sheesh.

An editing disagreement?

Boss claims he said 'would have been' and not 'would be'. I showed his own words saying 'would be'. Then there is his statement that he did not bring up pedophile marriage and the various quotes of him doing exactly that. There are at least a couple of other instances of the same sort of thing in this and the 'we should have condemned homosexuality' thread.

You appear to be defending him not based on the facts of the situation but because you tend to agree with him on the issue.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

Well yeah, asswipe... when there are 5,000 accusations made per thread of things I supposedly said but didn't say... I am bound to make an error now and then.

Of course, in CONTEXT (which you are oblivious to) the fact that I prefaced my comment with "I am starting to think" should imply (to most rational people) that I wasn't thinking that previously and haven't thought it before. Nor have I indicated I fully think that now. There is also a huge gaping difference between condemning homosexual activity and "rejecting gays" which was the accusation.

So again... thank you very much for illustrating the level of dishonesty in discourse goes on around here daily, but I don't think Jim needed an example.

Thank you for the example of your dishonesty.

Care to make any more claims that someone said the Alabama bill 'does nothing'?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let me repeat.

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

First of all, where do you get this crap about the “secular left” not having the same moral constraints? That “they don't subscribe to moral decency”.? This is just more of your ignorant and hateful horseshit. Does your moral compass emanate only from what you are told is moral by God or your Church? Do you not have the capacity to think for yourself, to make a rational assessment of what is right and wrong, good and bad, moral an immoral? I am a proud atheist. I live a moral life. I help people. I do not rob or assault people, nor do I molest children or engage in bestiality. I am that person because I believe those things are wrong. Don’t dare suggest that I am not a moral person or that anyone needs God to be moral.

Second of all, morals aside, are you going to tell us that you can’t think of a single, practical or rational reason why a son and his mother should not marry? Why it may not be a good idea for siblings to marry? Common, use your brains dude. Isn’t it the people who are opposed to same sex marriage that are whining and blathering about preserving the traditional family? Why the hell would they even want to? Do you know of any who does?

What about sex with children and bestiality? Is the only reason why you do not engage in those practices because you have been “taught “that they are immoral? There is nothing inside of you that is revolted by the thought of such practices? Again, morals aside, is it possible that you cannot think of a single compelling reason why we can’t let people go around screwing children and animals? Can it be that you don’t see the difference between these practices and that what happens between consenting adults?

I feel very sorry for you. You have somehow been severely damaged and there is probably no hope. The scariest part is that you presume to take on the role of the great moral arbiter while having not actual moral grounding that you can call your own.

 

[Boss]

Let me repeat.

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

First of all, where do you get this crap about the “secular left” not having the same moral constraints? That “they don't subscribe to moral decency”.? This is just more of your ignorant and hateful horseshit. Does your moral compass emanate only from what you are told is moral by God or your Church? Do you not have the capacity to think for yourself, to make a rational assessment of what is right and wrong, good and bad, moral an immoral? I am a proud atheist. I live a moral life. I help people. I do not rob or assault people, nor do I molest children or engage in bestiality. I am that person because I believe those things are wrong. Don’t dare suggest that I am not a moral person or that anyone needs God to be moral.

Second of all, morals aside, are you going to tell us that you can’t think of a single, practical or rational reason why a son and his mother should not marry? Why it may not be a good idea for siblings to marry? Common, use your brains dude. Isn’t it the people who are opposed to same sex marriage that are whining and blathering about preserving the traditional family? Why the hell would they even want to? Do you know of any who does?

What about sex with children and bestiality? Is the only reason why you do not engage in those practices because you have been “taught “that they are immoral? There is nothing inside of you that is revolted by the thought of such practices? Again, morals aside, is it possible that you cannot think of a single compelling reason why we can’t let people go around screwing children and animals? Can it be that you don’t see the difference between these practices and that what happens between consenting adults?

I feel very sorry for you. You have somehow been severely damaged and there is probably no hope. The scariest part is that you presume to take on the role of the great moral arbiter while having not actual moral ground that you can call your own.

And AGAIN... another shitstain posts his long-winded explanation: "Well if you don't know man, I sure can't tell you... Most of us just know it's wrong... guess YOU must not! -uh huh uh huhh"

We're not talking about ME personally, asswipe. I am a moral person who understands it's immoral and wrong the same way I understand that men ******* each other in the ass is wrong. I am perfectly FINE with having laws which constrain what we can do according to social acceptance and morality. YOU are the one who wants to carve out an exception to that and exclude others. And you have NO BASIS!

You've used the 14th Amendment and obtained the right to legitimize your sexual behavior but now you want to make the exact same arguments that were made against you as a basis to discriminate against others who are no different than you... they just prefer a different kind of deviant sex. I'm asking how you can justify being a two-faced hypocrite on this and you're trying to spin that into my supporting immoral acts for some bizarre reason.

Actually, I know why you do it... you are a dishonest miserable little piece of shit who gets his rocks off venting his frustrations by bashing conservatives because he had a shitty relationship with his father.

 

[Boss]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.

Well yeah, asswipe... when there are 5,000 accusations made per thread of things I supposedly said but didn't say... I am bound to make an error now and then.

Of course, in CONTEXT (which you are oblivious to) the fact that I prefaced my comment with "I am starting to think" should imply (to most rational people) that I wasn't thinking that previously and haven't thought it before. Nor have I indicated I fully think that now. There is also a huge gaping difference between condemning homosexual activity and "rejecting gays" which was the accusation.

So again... thank you very much for illustrating the level of dishonesty in discourse goes on around here daily, but I don't think Jim needed an example.

Thank you for the example of your dishonesty.

Care to make any more claims that someone said the Alabama bill 'does nothing'?

Go **** yourself, Montronaut.