Question for gay marriage opponents

[defcon4]

I like this guy! Now I can go to any private golf club, yacht club or any exclusive club because according to this guy's reasoning/principle everybody comes at goes as they wish. They cannot keep me out…or can they?

Yes, as long as they don't get tax breaks. Employment laws and religious ceremonies are two different things, you probably never learned about. I am saying it's time to take away religious organizations' exemption and stop the homophobic christians from imposing their own outdated moral code on their employees if they are going to be a public organization that receives tax breaks. Their privacy extends to their religious beliefs and practices, not to employee hiring practices. They still have to provide safe, no discriminatory work place.

That moral code includes marriage between a male and a female, you know why? To ensure the continuity/survival of the species. The prime example for the importance of that code is the species of DINOSAURS. They did not have that moral code, became fags and guess what? They went ******* extinct. Now, the memory of the fate of the ****** dinosaurs stayed with those species which did not go *** and the moral code was born throughout the evolution of mankind. Darwin must have know about that.

The dinosaurs were fags??? Holy ****! Thought that they got hit by an asteroid or something. Oh I know, they got hit by an asteroid BECAUSE they were fags.

You could not detect the absurdity of faggotism being portrayed by an absurd analogy. What an imbecile!!!!

A pseudo absurdity embedded in the actual absurdity of your belief that homosexuality is a threat to our species. What an imbecile !!

I rather be an imbecile having normal sexual relationship with a woman than an "enlightened" ****** with the delirious belief that men are women.

 

[defcon4]

Sorry but your religion teaches and encourages bigotry and hate. Just replace the word gays with blacks and you will know what I mean.

You have every right to hate gays and exclude them from your organization. And I have every right to call you a homophobe and a bigot if you do so.

You believe that your hateful organization that you call church is exempt from some of the laws of congress that apply to all others. Sadly the politicians have capitulated against the religious bodies.

If you are not going to treat all human beings with respect, then you will be called out for your hate. You can defend it all you want under the guise of "religious freedom", but every action has consequences.

My religion teaches me with mercy and traditions - why are you approve other, if you didnt' read the Bible?
Because, If you read the Bible, you should know, Bible is saying nothing special with any coloured people, but about gays you've seen quote, I typed.

But it's interesting, let's see, what's happens. I, "hateful bigot" permanently trying to explain situation, find a compromise salvaiton, accurate separating one idea of another to avoid misunderstanding and conflict.

You, "human rights defender" - just mixing social, sexual and any other aspects of human's life, dividing humans on "black" and "others", forcing extremal gayism without any reasonable borders, including church's traditions...

So I have a question. From which page of Orwell's novell did you came?

You know, Russia starts to look more and more attractive. Putin is cool and will not put up with ****** bullshit. If you are a *** in Russia you better in your bedroom and shut up about it. Am I right about Russia?

Better pack your bags then. You might also want to consider Uganda or the middle east. By now!

What I hear? You really discriminate Uganda and middle east by the colour of their people skin! It's a real face of gay's "equality"...

Uh… Sbiker touched on something driving the truth home. Faggots are intolerant racists.

 

[Sbiker]

Sorry but your religion teaches and encourages bigotry and hate. Just replace the word gays with blacks and you will know what I mean.

You have every right to hate gays and exclude them from your organization. And I have every right to call you a homophobe and a bigot if you do so.

You believe that your hateful organization that you call church is exempt from some of the laws of congress that apply to all others. Sadly the politicians have capitulated against the religious bodies.

If you are not going to treat all human beings with respect, then you will be called out for your hate. You can defend it all you want under the guise of "religious freedom", but every action has consequences.

My religion teaches me with mercy and traditions - why are you approve other, if you didnt' read the Bible?
Because, If you read the Bible, you should know, Bible is saying nothing special with any coloured people, but about gays you've seen quote, I typed.

But it's interesting, let's see, what's happens. I, "hateful bigot" permanently trying to explain situation, find a compromise salvaiton, accurate separating one idea of another to avoid misunderstanding and conflict.

You, "human rights defender" - just mixing social, sexual and any other aspects of human's life, dividing humans on "black" and "others", forcing extremal gayism without any reasonable borders, including church's traditions...

So I have a question. From which page of Orwell's novell did you came?

You know, Russia starts to look more and more attractive. Putin is cool and will not put up with ****** bullshit. If you are a *** in Russia you better in your bedroom and shut up about it. Am I right about Russia?

You should also consider Iran and Saudi Arabia. They welcome bigots just as does Russia. Please say Hi to putin when you get there. And send me some Vodka to celebrate America a better place by your relocation.

Huh, Russia really have ability and territory to admit and place all "bigoted" christians with traditionalistic family values And vodka - is great drink for the real men, not for girls...

I am sure you meant pussies with dicks (especially faggots) when you said "not for girls" Girls are more fun when they are tipsy…

Yeah, sure. Because real beautiful girls usually drink vodka too - but not pure, with added juice and ice and so on

 

[defcon4]

My religion teaches me with mercy and traditions - why are you approve other, if you didnt' read the Bible?
Because, If you read the Bible, you should know, Bible is saying nothing special with any coloured people, but about gays you've seen quote, I typed.

But it's interesting, let's see, what's happens. I, "hateful bigot" permanently trying to explain situation, find a compromise salvaiton, accurate separating one idea of another to avoid misunderstanding and conflict.

You, "human rights defender" - just mixing social, sexual and any other aspects of human's life, dividing humans on "black" and "others", forcing extremal gayism without any reasonable borders, including church's traditions...

So I have a question. From which page of Orwell's novell did you came?

You know, Russia starts to look more and more attractive. Putin is cool and will not put up with ****** bullshit. If you are a *** in Russia you better in your bedroom and shut up about it. Am I right about Russia?

You should also consider Iran and Saudi Arabia. They welcome bigots just as does Russia. Please say Hi to putin when you get there. And send me some Vodka to celebrate America a better place by your relocation.

Huh, Russia really have ability and territory to admit and place all "bigoted" christians with traditionalistic family values And vodka - is great drink for the real men, not for girls...

I am sure you meant pussies with dicks (especially faggots) when you said "not for girls" Girls are more fun when they are tipsy…

Yeah, sure. Because real beautiful girls usually drink vodka too - but not pure, with added juice and ice and so on

hehe… of course.

 

[World Savior]

I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.

If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.

If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.

Your thoughts?

You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.

I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.

However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.

Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[defcon4]

I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.

If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.

If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.

Your thoughts?

You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.

I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.

However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.

Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.

Who in the **** is attacking GM>>>General Motors?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, as long as they don't get tax breaks. Employment laws and religious ceremonies are two different things, you probably never learned about. I am saying it's time to take away religious organizations' exemption and stop the homophobic christians from imposing their own outdated moral code on their employees if they are going to be a public organization that receives tax breaks. Their privacy extends to their religious beliefs and practices, not to employee hiring practices. They still have to provide safe, no discriminatory work place.

That moral code includes marriage between a male and a female, you know why? To ensure the continuity/survival of the species. The prime example for the importance of that code is the species of DINOSAURS. They did not have that moral code, became fags and guess what? They went ******* extinct. Now, the memory of the fate of the ****** dinosaurs stayed with those species which did not go *** and the moral code was born throughout the evolution of mankind. Darwin must have know about that.

The dinosaurs were fags??? Holy ****! Thought that they got hit by an asteroid or something. Oh I know, they got hit by an asteroid BECAUSE they were fags.

You could not detect the absurdity of faggotism being portrayed by an absurd analogy. What an imbecile!!!!

A pseudo absurdity embedded in the actual absurdity of your belief that homosexuality is a threat to our species. What an imbecile !!

I rather be an imbecile having normal sexual relationship with a woman than an "enlightened" ****** with the delirious belief that men are women.

Welcome to my not so exclusive ignore list

 

[defcon4]

That moral code includes marriage between a male and a female, you know why? To ensure the continuity/survival of the species. The prime example for the importance of that code is the species of DINOSAURS. They did not have that moral code, became fags and guess what? They went ******* extinct. Now, the memory of the fate of the ****** dinosaurs stayed with those species which did not go *** and the moral code was born throughout the evolution of mankind. Darwin must have know about that.

The dinosaurs were fags??? Holy ****! Thought that they got hit by an asteroid or something. Oh I know, they got hit by an asteroid BECAUSE they were fags.

You could not detect the absurdity of faggotism being portrayed by an absurd analogy. What an imbecile!!!!

A pseudo absurdity embedded in the actual absurdity of your belief that homosexuality is a threat to our species. What an imbecile !!

I rather be an imbecile having normal sexual relationship with a woman than an "enlightened" ****** with the delirious belief that men are women.

Welcome to my not so exclusive ignore list

Hiding… typical. If you cannot take the heat when your folly is exposed you go in hiding… Ostrich policy is a libertard policy...

 

[g5000]

Uh… Sbiker touched on something driving the truth home. Faggots are intolerant racists.

I stumbled across a local bakers meeting!

Anybody have a recipe for unleavened bread?

 

[World Savior]

I heard Tony Perkins of family research council say that gay marriage is bad but heterosexual marriage is better for children. It is because a child needs a mother and a father for healthy growth and a good life.

If that is true, then why don't gay marriage opponents also object to children staying in single parent homes? About half of US children live in single parent households.

If you object to gay marriage on the grounds that a child needs a mom and a dad, then the gay marriage haters should have actively pursued constitutional and legal changes within our family structures that prohibit single parent households as vociferously as they opposed gay marriages. Seems to me one mom would be far worse choice than having two moms.

Your thoughts?

You are making the assumption that being a single parent is always by choice. We live in a promiscuous society of self indulgence, where people often don't think about the consequences of their actions. How many dad's decide to move on when it's discovered she is pregnant. Just to be fair, I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true and she leaves him with a baby to raise. We are not a country that values marriage any more than a simple piece of paper, it's always simpler to move on to fulfilling our own goals, advancing our own careers, seek another relationship, because (quite simply) it's too much of an effort to make a relationship work.

I don't give a shit about relationships. The question was about children. Adults can decide whatever they want to do or not do. You object to kids being raised without both parents. So instead of attacking GM, you should attack the single parenthood.

However, the homophobes only attack gay parents. They don't legislatively attack single parents. You wanted to oppose GM because kids need a mom and dad. You do not oppose single parenthood as vigorously as you oppose GM.

Thus I called your BS and labeled you people as a group homophobes. You people are homophobes, nothing more, nothing less.

Who in the **** is attacking GM>>>General Motors?

GM = Gay Marriage. Sheesh!

 

[g5000]

I rather be an imbecile having normal sexual relationship with a woman than an "enlightened" ****** with the delirious belief that men are women.

You can have a wedding cake when you pry it from my dead, cold hands!!!

 

[defcon4]

Uh… Sbiker touched on something driving the truth home. Faggots are intolerant racists.

Democrats in the early 1900s. At that time they did not "support" faggots for political convenience and were quite much of a racist bunch.
So… what's the reason for your posting your memorabilia?

 

[g5000]

Uh… Sbiker touched on something driving the truth home. Faggots are intolerant racists.

Democrats in the early 1900s. At that time they did not "support" faggots for political convenience and were quite much of a racist bunch.
So… what's the reason for your posting your memorabilia?

You are their direct political descendant. Say hello to your ancestors! Praise Jesus and grab some rope.

 

[defcon4]

I rather be an imbecile having normal sexual relationship with a woman than an "enlightened" ****** with the delirious belief that men are women.

You can have a wedding cake when you pry it from my dead, cold hands!!!

As the hiding ***** (World Savior) stated I am an imbecile therefore I do not understand why you are posting your democrat memorabilia.

 

[defcon4]

You are their direct political descendant.

Where did you get the notion that I am a democrat? Assumption? You know, assuming can lead down the path of errors.

 

[Sbiker]

GM = Gay Marriage. Sheesh!

The gays have nothing as holy! Today they've stolen a GM label, tomorrow they'll steal the Moon!

P.S. the Great Moon!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More conservatives explain that marriage isn’t supposed to be about love or happiness More conservatives explain that marriage isn t supposed to be about love or happiness

Basically, their real concern is that people are going to stop seeing marriage as a miserable duty to be endured and instead start thinking that love, happiness, and companionship should be what marriage is about. The marriage-for-love mentality is no doubt especially threatening to some of your more sexist men.

And thankfully, conservatives are just becoming more open about this fear. Mike Huckabee went on CNN and trotted out an almost shockingly blatant version of this argument.

"Regardless, heterosexual marriage is largely in trouble today because people see it as a selfish means of pleasing self, rather than a committed relationship in which the focus is on meeting the needs of the partner,” he said. “That sense of selfishness and the redefinition of love as to something that is purely sentimental and emotional, has been destructive.”

 

[Sbiker]

While the gays are singing about speculative "discriminations", real Jenn Fichter got the real prison for the 22 years and for what? Because she wasn't lesbian? Because she has "wrong" heterosexual orientation?

 

[Dana7360]

You all are forgetting a very important truth to all this.

Not all single mothers started out that way.

There's this legal procedure we call DIVORCE here in America. Were a married couple can legally dissolve their marriage.

So you're saying that the state should take children that have been with their parents all of their lives and stick them in the foster care system to be adopted?

Against the will of the parents and child?

Do you realize how illegal, cruel and sick your views are?

Once again you conservatives show you're nothing but liars when you say you want a small government and government out of your lives.

You want a big nanny government to monitor our lives from conception to death.

I'm a believer in a different style of marriage where divorce is much less common. I'm not a big believer in the appropriateness of divorce either.

When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.

I've never said I want a small Government, just one that's focused on the proper things.

So let me get this straight.

When a couple divorces you want the state to come and take their children even though they're good parents and the children are perfectly safe and loved by the parents.

You do realize what you propose is cruel and wrong don't you?

You're calling for the government to put divorced people's child in a foster home that the adults are paid by the government to have the children there and for those children to be put up for adoption.

Wow. Talk about crazy. Just because parents divorce doesn't mean that the government should force their way into their lives and take their children they love and put those children with total strangers until the children are 18.

Thank goodness there aren't more people like you and none in our government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You all are forgetting a very important truth to all this.

Not all single mothers started out that way.

There's this legal procedure we call DIVORCE here in America. Were a married couple can legally dissolve their marriage.

So you're saying that the state should take children that have been with their parents all of their lives and stick them in the foster care system to be adopted?

Against the will of the parents and child?

Do you realize how illegal, cruel and sick your views are?

Once again you conservatives show you're nothing but liars when you say you want a small government and government out of your lives.

You want a big nanny government to monitor our lives from conception to death.

I'm a believer in a different style of marriage where divorce is much less common. I'm not a big believer in the appropriateness of divorce either.

When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.

I've never said I want a small Government, just one that's focused on the proper things.

When it does happen the kids should be taken and placed with foster/adoptive parents, not left in some Government home.

I have heard some crazy ass shit on this board but this takes the cake by far . Do you have any idea what you are advocating? What the impact on the child would be.? I do because I worked in a foster care and adoption agency for 26 years and I can tell you that removal is devastating!

Even children who have been abused are still bonded to the parents and are traumatized by removal. What next? Should parental rights be terminated if one the parents does not remarry in a certain amount of time to take the child back?

What else would you call for, the removal of all children born to single women at birth? You really haven't thought much about this have you.

Oh and those foster homes are government homes. They are licensed and funded by the government

Got kids?