Next.. Group Marriage

[Luissa]

wow, you're not tolerant of biggots, well please tell us your definition? I cant wait to hear it.

See post #191.
That is a bigot.

For Dildoduck I will add. There is one G in bigots, there are two Ls in fellatio.

damn--this thread is like English Class. but thanks !

Did you like your English teacher?

 

[dilloduck]

True, the double L would make it plural.

I need some fellatio.

order early before they sell out.

Men need to understand this.... For women it is never sold out.

don't lie---you can say no at anytime.

 

[BlueGin]

True, the double L would make it plural.

I need some fellatio.

I'm sure you can find a liberal dude willing to take you up on it, all you have to do is ask.

I am pretty sure I could find a conservative man also.

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

 

[Luissa]

I'm sure you can find a liberal dude willing to take you up on it, all you have to do is ask.

I am pretty sure I could find a conservative man also.

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

I set myself up there.

 

[dilloduck]

I am pretty sure I could find a conservative man also.

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

I set myself up there.

and we appreciate it

 

[RKMBrown]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I am not tolerant of bigots.
And there is two Ls in fellatio.

Do you only have a problem with two men giving each other head?

wow, you're not tolerant of biggots, well please tell us your definition? I cant wait to hear it.

See post #191.
That is a bigot.

For Dildoduck I will add. There is one G in bigots, there are two Ls in fellatio.

Dont give me lessons on spelling, when you cant even articulate your point.... so again, whats your definition of a racist, other than someone who disagrees with you.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

I set myself up there.

and we appreciate it

time for breakfast...

 

[Luissa]

wow, you're not tolerant of biggots, well please tell us your definition? I cant wait to hear it.

See post #191.
That is a bigot.

For Dildoduck I will add. There is one G in bigots, there are two Ls in fellatio.

Dont give me lessons on spelling, when you cant even articulate your point.... so again, whats your definition of a racist, other than someone who disagrees with you.

It was a joke.

 

[buckeye45_73]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

So lets get rid of all laws based on morality...no murder, rape, theft, all of those are based on religious morality.

And yeah jesus was pro gay, pro drugs and a socialist, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously

 

[Redfish]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

>>> marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

Yes, gays have been persecuted throught history. Additionally, people have had to suffer under slavery, and racism. Based on using history as a measure, should we allow slavery and racism? If not, why not? Why is one form of persecution ok by you and another form not? Your religious convictions? Can you find for me the basis for your religious conviction that gays are perverts please. I've looked and only found one obscure jewish law. Jesus, by contrast, did not persecute gays. Wonder why?

The fight to define marriage by "law" as only between a man and woman, has clearly not had the result that the authoritarian religious groups intended, huh?

FYI: You can use any definition of the term Marriage that you wish to use. What you can't do, based on the Constitution, is establish your religious rules and convictions as the law of the land.

no one is trying to do that but the supporters of gay marriage. their mantra "I think its right so you MUST accept it" you have the whole thing backwards.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I'm sure you can find a liberal dude willing to take you up on it, all you have to do is ask.

I am pretty sure I could find a conservative man also.

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

We have standards or at least a list of qualifiers, as I recall, being happily married 27 years it's somewhat lost in memory...

 

[Redfish]

I am pretty sure I could find a conservative man also.

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

We have standards or at least a list of qualifiers, as I recall, being happily married 27 years it's somewhat lost in memory...

been a long time for me too, been married about 20 years longer than you, but if I remember correctly, my qualifiers were: female, willing, and I can't think of any others.

 

[BlindBoo]

not true at all, just don't have the government demand that I accept your beliefs. No one objects to gays entering into a mutual care and committment contract with all the rights of a man/woman marriage. But the gay committment contract is not a marriage, and I resent the government mandating that the majority change their long standing beliefs of what constitutes a marriage.

Clearly, by your stated resentment, you do object. Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. It's not a marriage in your eyes, so what? What makes you the owner of the term marriage? Your religion? Are you saying throw out the first amendment to the Constitution for your benefit?

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

You’re either willfully lying, which doesn’t say much about your commitment to your religion, or you’re woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

?Historical? Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Men in general have no standards as long as they get a warm body.

We have standards or at least a list of qualifiers, as I recall, being happily married 27 years it's somewhat lost in memory...

been a long time for me too, been married about 20 years longer than you, but if I remember correctly, my qualifiers were: female, willing, and I can't think of any others.

Sheesh...don't admit to that..BlueGin will speak of you despairingly..

 

[BlueGin]

We have standards or at least a list of qualifiers, as I recall, being happily married 27 years it's somewhat lost in memory...

been a long time for me too, been married about 20 years longer than you, but if I remember correctly, my qualifiers were: female, willing, and I can't think of any others.

Sheesh...don't admit to that..BlueGin will speak of you despairingly..

You can't help yourselves...it's in your DNA... just ask Dillo.

 

[Lumpy 1]

been a long time for me too, been married about 20 years longer than you, but if I remember correctly, my qualifiers were: female, willing, and I can't think of any others.

Sheesh...don't admit to that..BlueGin will speak of you despairingly..

You can't help yourselves...it's in your DNA... just ask Dillo.

You mean blame Dillo....he lead me astray..

I was innocent...Innocent, I tells Ya..

 

[Redfish]

Clearly, by your stated resentment, you do object. Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. It's not a marriage in your eyes, so what? What makes you the owner of the term marriage? Your religion? Are you saying throw out the first amendment to the Constitution for your benefit?

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

You’re either willfully lying, which doesn’t say much about your commitment to your religion, or you’re woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

?Historical? Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman.

OK, so muslim countries define it as a man and up to 4 women. how do you strech that to gay marriage? do you want muslim marriage to be legal in the USA?

 

[BlindBoo]

marriage has had a certain meaning in human cultures for centuries, homosexuality, while it has always been around, has always been considered a perversion.

I have no problem with gays wanting a legal document committing to each other and giving them survivor benefits etc, but that union is not a marriage.

as I ssid to someone else, you guys don't want equality and equal rights, you want to change the definition of marriage that has been used for thousands of years---and you want the government to force the rest of us to accept that change. You may win this, but not without a fight, and if you win, society will lose. But who cares, we have already lost most of our cultural heritage in the name of political correctness, might as well follow the romans and egyptians into the abyss of immorality.

You’re either willfully lying, which doesn’t say much about your commitment to your religion, or you’re woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

?Historical? Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman.

OK, so muslim countries define it as a man and up to 4 women. how do you strech that to gay marriage? do you want muslim marriage to be legal in the USA?

Same-sex marriages existed in .....read all about it in the link.

Just like Mormons, Muslims must conform to the laws of the land. Can't marry your Camel/Sheep either. Of course that doesn't mean they can't live with four women and treat them like wives but that goes for anybody not just Muslims.

 

[Redfish]

You’re either willfully lying, which doesn’t say much about your commitment to your religion, or you’re woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

?Historical? Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman.

OK, so muslim countries define it as a man and up to 4 women. how do you strech that to gay marriage? do you want muslim marriage to be legal in the USA?

Same-sex marriages existed in .....read all about it in the link.

Just like Mormons, Muslims must conform to the laws of the land. Can't marry your Camel/Sheep either. Of course that doesn't mean they can't live with four women and treat them like wives but that goes for anybody not just Muslims.

I don't care who lives together and whether they include animals or dead people. Just don't sanctify those relationships as marriages.

guys in prison hook up and stay together too, do you want the state to sanction those relationships as marriages? where does the foolishness end.

let two male or two female prisoners marry and then when they get out give them free legal services for their divorce? we have lost our minds in this country.