North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[bigrebnc1775]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

I believe the pedophiles will be the third group.

First group will be the polygamists. Traveling salesman marrying and abandoning 85 wives around the Nation.

Second group will be the incestuals. Bob marrying his mother and 6 sisters.


Preventing such unions would be 'discriminatory' under any redifiniing of marriage.

I'm still not sure yet when the Sheep herder makes his plea pretaining to his beloved ewes.

OH and let's not forget about those who really their animals. Let's not discriminate against them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

My little troll stalker, this is about contractual rights of marriage.

Animals, if you don't know, cannot contract to marry. If you want sex with animals, that yours business.

Polygamy, knowing what I know about Mormon fundamentalists, is bothersome to me. One part of me says "yes" and the other part of me says "that is not right." Minors cannot contract.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

My little troll stalker, this is about contractual rights of marriage.

Animals, if you don't know, cannot contract to marry. If you want sex with animals, that yours business.

Polygamy, knowing what I know about Mormon fundamentalists, is bothersome to me. One part of me says "yes" and the other part of me says "that is not right." Minors cannot contract.

Stalker you will always be. If your so afraid of me being your stalker why are you following me to every thread I go too?

Now humans have rights why are you against giving humans the right to have sex with animals? And you don't need a contract to have sex.

Once you start giving certain groups special rights other group will say they are being discriminated against.

Those who want to marry a family member for starters if you're stupid enough to ask who.

 

[SniperFire]

[

Polygamy, knowing what I know about Mormon fundamentalists, is bothersome to me. One part of me says "yes" and the other part of me says "that is not right."

Too damn bad what parts of you have to say about it.

If you want to redefine marriage, you must let any man marry 4,654 wives and let Bob marry his mother and breed with his 6 sisters.

And who is to say the gleam in the ewe's eye prior to his owner plowing her is not her tacid approval?

Who are you, bigot, to deny love?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My little troll stalker throws a tantrum: not too cute, either.

Why do you want animals to have contracts to have sex with humans: your animal-sex agenda is offensive to moral, decent people.

Universal marriage is not a special right, it is a human right.

Minors don't have the right to contract so it would be unbalanced family adults that want the right to force minors into sex contracts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

Polygamy, knowing what I know about Mormon fundamentalists, is bothersome to me. One part of me says "yes" and the other part of me says "that is not right."

If you want to redefine marriage, you must let any man marry 4,654 wives and let Bob marry his mother and breed with his 6 sisters.

And who is to say the gleam in the ewe's eye prior to his owner plowing her is not her tacid approval?

Who are you, bigot, to deny love?

I have problems with polygamous marriage: I can live with it.

Animals can't contract, so Sniper can't marry an animal. I hope Sniper does not want to have sex with an animal.

 

[SniperFire]

Universal marriage is not a special right, it is a human right.

That is nonsense, concerned troll, and supported by nothing other than your empty rhetoric.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SniperTroll is upset that universal marriage is a human right, and who cares about that type of thinking.

Step off.

 

[SniperFire]

[

Polygamy, knowing what I know about Mormon fundamentalists, is bothersome to me. One part of me says "yes" and the other part of me says "that is not right."

If you want to redefine marriage, you must let any man marry 4,654 wives and let Bob marry his mother and breed with his 6 sisters.

And who is to say the gleam in the ewe's eye prior to his owner plowing her is not her tacid approval?

Who are you, bigot, to deny love?

I have problems with polygamous marriage: I can live with it.

Excellent admission.

So one practical reprucussion of a Liberal redefinition of marriage is permitting polygamy - and the known social destruction of letting men marry hundreds of wives if he so chooses.

How about letting a man marry his mother and sisters and breeding with them?

Are you going to stop this discrimination as well?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My little troll stalker throws a tantrum: not too cute, either.

Why do you want animals to have contracts to have sex with humans: your animal-sex agenda is offensive to moral, decent people.

Universal marriage is not a special right, it is a human right.

Minors don't have the right to contract so it would be unbalanced family adults that want the right to force minors into sex contracts.

can you actually answer a post without trolling a thread?
You don't need a contract to have sex.
Why are you selective of whose rights need to be defended?
Should people be allowed to marry family members? Should they be allowed to have as many spouses they want to at one time? Should we allow people the right to have sex with animals because we gave a special right of marriage to gays?

 

[SniperFire]

Who are ewe to deny love, Jake?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

SniperTroll is upset that universal marriage is a human right, and who cares about that type of thinking.

Step off.

troll makes shit up as they go universal marriage holy ******* shit

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you want to redefine marriage, you must let any man marry 4,654 wives and let Bob marry his mother and breed with his 6 sisters.

And who is to say the gleam in the ewe's eye prior to his owner plowing her is not her tacid approval?

Who are you, bigot, to deny love?

I have problems with polygamous marriage: I can live with it.

So one practical reprucussion of a Liberal redefinition of marriage is permitting polygamy - and the known social destruction of letting men marry hundreds of wives if he so chooses.

Nah, you have eliminated your argument when you ignore that universal marriage is a human right, recognized in jurisdictions where 25% of our citizens live, and it is a mere matter of a short time before it is legal everywhere.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My little troll stalker throws a tantrum: not too cute, either.

Why do you want animals to have contracts to have sex with humans: your animal-sex agenda is offensive to moral, decent people.

Universal marriage is not a special right, it is a human right.

Minors don't have the right to contract so it would be unbalanced family adults that want the right to force minors into sex contracts.

can you actually answer a post without trolling a thread?
You don't need a contract to have sex.

My answers destroy your points, my little stalker troll.

To have marriage with animals you would need a contract, and animals can't contract.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My little troll stalker throws a tantrum: not too cute, either.

Why do you want animals to have contracts to have sex with humans: your animal-sex agenda is offensive to moral, decent people.

Universal marriage is not a special right, it is a human right.

Minors don't have the right to contract so it would be unbalanced family adults that want the right to force minors into sex contracts.

can you actually answer a post without trolling a thread?
You don't need a contract to have sex. Why are you selective of whose rights need to be defended?
Should people be allowed to marry family members? Should they be allowed to have as many spouses they want to at one time? Should we allow people the right to have sex with animals because we gave a special right of marriage to gays?

My answers destroy your points, my little stalker troll.

To have marriage with animals you would need a contract, and animals can't contract.

Your point is weak at best why are you so selective on who's rights need to be defended?
Start giving special rights to certain groups other groups will feel they are discriminated against. And we will be forced to give more rights.

Again you do not need a contract to have sex

 

[candycorn]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

I believe the pedophiles will be the third group.

First group will be the polygamists. Traveling salesman marrying and abandoning 85 wives around the Nation.

Well, as long as the marriages are from consenting adults and any financial benefits/injuries are shared among the 85 wives; none of my business.

Second group will be the incestuals. Bob marrying his mother and 6 sisters.

Again, as long as Mom and the sisters are consenting adults and any financial benefits/injuries are shared among the 7 women; none of my business.

Or yours.

Preventing such unions would be 'discriminatory' under any redifiniing of marriage.

Not really, depending on how the federal law overturning the NC and other state laws/amendments is written. Likely it will be written between 2 consenting adults.

I'm still not sure yet when the Sheep herder makes his plea pretaining to his beloved ewes.

Animals cannot give consent so this is a non-starter.

 

[SniperFire]

I have problems with polygamous marriage: I can live with it.

So one practical reprucussion of a Liberal redefinition of marriage is permitting polygamy - and the known social destruction of letting men marry hundreds of wives if he so chooses.

Nah, you have eliminated your argument when you ignore that universal marriage is a human right,

How is polygamy and incest eliminated from the argument?


Just because you say so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your point is weak at best why are you so selective on who's rights need to be defended? Start giving special rights to certain groups other groups will feel they are discriminated against. And we will be forced to give more rights.

Who gives "rights"? The government? Oh oh, you moron stalker troll. Our rights are inalienable, and among them are the right to universal marriage. You claim to be Conservative but act awful on this issue. For shame, shameful stalker troll.

 

[SniperFire]

Excellent, candycorn.

How about this scenario under your new redefinitiion of marriage.

A millionaire runs an ad targeting high school 16 year olds (age of consent), promising to give each of them $1,500 for college if they agree to marry him and bed down for a couple days.

No fats of course.

No law stopping that, is there?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

I believe the pedophiles will be the third group.

First group will be the polygamists. Traveling salesman marrying and abandoning 85 wives around the Nation.

Well, as long as the marriages are from consenting adults and any financial benefits/injuries are shared among the 85 wives; none of my business.


Again, as long as Mom and the sisters are consenting adults and any financial benefits/injuries are shared among the 7 women; none of my business.

Or yours.

Preventing such unions would be 'discriminatory' under any redifiniing of marriage.

Not really, depending on how the federal law overturning the NC and other state laws/amendments is written. Likely it will be written between 2 consenting adults.

I'm still not sure yet when the Sheep herder makes his plea pretaining to his beloved ewes.

Animals cannot give consent so this is a non-starter.

Animals cannot give consent so this is a non-starter

Do animals need to give their consent to be sold as breeding stock? Do animals need to give their consent to be eaten? Why must you restrict the rights of people who like to have sex with animals?