What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[Redfish]

I lived through it, asshole. I know first hand what it was about. and by the way=========go **** yourself.

So... living through something makes you an expert on it does it?
Do you know how many soldiers went to Vietnam without a clue why they were they, and they probably still don't. Surely having been there they should be experts.

Also, another question related to a previous post.

How moral is it to call me "asshole" and to say "go **** yourself"?

You come on here claiming to be the embodiment of morality then...........

Yes, living through it does make me an expert on it. Yes, a lot of them did not know what it was about. 58,000 of them died for what? to keep communism out of south viet nam???????? WTF.

I only insult those who deserve it, in this thread that is you.

 

[Redfish]

frigedweido----------the defective liberal gene (DRD4) in action. only someone with a genetic defect would name himself/herself/itself frigedweirdo

 

[RKMBrown]

Two consenting adults of the same sex getting married harms no one.

Abortion kills the baby.. killing someone with forethought is not liberty, it is murder.

Yes, one with no record of violence, and having shown no evidence that they might be about to do something violent, should be able to get in their car or bus or train or plane without being poked, prodded, and x-rayed.

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't "say" what you want to say. I believe the issue is that of harm, for example a law that states two homosexuals can't be married. In that case a tangible harm has been done to those two homosexuals. In the case of those homosexuals being allowed to be married and the government recognizing said marriage the harm done to people in opposition is not tangible, it is more a harm to their "pride and prejudice."

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

 

[frigidweirdo]

^^^^red herring. you refuse to understand the real issue. it has nothing to do with tolerance or equal treatment. it has to do with the survival of our culture.

Is it? Or are you moving the goalposts yet again.

However you make an interesting point.
While reading Thomas Hardy (Tess of the d'Urbervilles I believe) I came upon a thought that was interesting. Basically the father has the last life of a three life tenancy agreement. He dies. The family get kicked out and Hardy laments this loss of village life having to move to the big city. He's clearly making a point with this.
My thought was that culture simply can't stand still. It was changing in the 1800s. It changed in the 1700s. US culture in 1776 was nothing like US culture in 2014.
In fact, culture that stands still goes stagnant, people don't care any more. I've lived in various countries and the old traditions are dying out. Be it Bull Fighting in Spain, Morris Dancing in the UK or whatever, it's all changing.

You want culture to survive. Tough, it won't. Nothing you can do about it. It will change, it will adapt. US culture is a massive mix of many cultures coming together. Hispanic culture is mixing and changing with Anglo Saxon culture, which has mixed with black African culture, and so on and on and on.

Don't fight it. There's nothing anyone has ever been able to do to stop this.

 

[RKMBrown]

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Where's the moral compass pointing at a 50% divorce rate then?

What is right about telling children they can freely discriminate against people who are unfortunate enough to not be considered "normal"?
Is it moral to call black people "ni***rs"? Is it right to deny women the vote? Is it right to deny black people to marry? Is it right to deny black and white people the right to marry each other? This is the beginning of the US 200 something years ago. Morally the US has got better. More tolerance, more equality, more morality in this sense.

Accepting gay marriage isn't going to make the US more or less moral, morality problems exist with crimes involving violence, theft and so on.

^^^^red herring. you refuse to understand the real issue. it has nothing to do with tolerance or equal treatment. it has to do with the survival of our culture.

The sky is falling if a homos get married? ROFL

 

[Redfish]

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't "say" what you want to say. I believe the issue is that of harm, for example a law that states two homosexuals can't be married. In that case a tangible harm has been done to those two homosexuals. In the case of those homosexuals being allowed to be married and the government recognizing said marriage the harm done to people in opposition is not tangible, it is more a harm to their "pride and prejudice."

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

I have gay relatives and friends. I love and respect every one of them. A society that accepts people for what they are is not homophobic or biased. Gays do not need to word 'marriage' in order to have equality and fair treatment. The gays that I know personally are not hung up on the marriage thing, they think its a joke because they know whats really behind it.

race and sex are not analogous when it comes to marriage.

 

[Redfish]

^^^^red herring. you refuse to understand the real issue. it has nothing to do with tolerance or equal treatment. it has to do with the survival of our culture.

Is it? Or are you moving the goalposts yet again.

However you make an interesting point.
While reading Thomas Hardy (Tess of the d'Urbervilles I believe) I came upon a thought that was interesting. Basically the father has the last life of a three life tenancy agreement. He dies. The family get kicked out and Hardy laments this loss of village life having to move to the big city. He's clearly making a point with this.
My thought was that culture simply can't stand still. It was changing in the 1800s. It changed in the 1700s. US culture in 1776 was nothing like US culture in 2014.
In fact, culture that stands still goes stagnant, people don't care any more. I've lived in various countries and the old traditions are dying out. Be it Bull Fighting in Spain, Morris Dancing in the UK or whatever, it's all changing.

You want culture to survive. Tough, it won't. Nothing you can do about it. It will change, it will adapt. US culture is a massive mix of many cultures coming together. Hispanic culture is mixing and changing with Anglo Saxon culture, which has mixed with black African culture, and so on and on and on.

Don't fight it. There's nothing anyone has ever been able to do to stop this.

you may be right. the following cultures changed as you describe----------and collapsed
Rome, Greece, Mayans, Aztecs, Sumarians, Egyptians.

if we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. A culture with no sense of right and wrong will fail, every time.

Why has China survived for 6000 years? because their culture has remained basically unchanged as to morals and right and wrong. We may disagree with them, but they will probably own us in 100 years or so.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think anyone is saying you can't "say" what you want to say. I believe the issue is that of harm, for example a law that states two homosexuals can't be married. In that case a tangible harm has been done to those two homosexuals. In the case of those homosexuals being allowed to be married and the government recognizing said marriage the harm done to people in opposition is not tangible, it is more a harm to their "pride and prejudice."

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

I have gay relatives and friends. I love and respect every one of them. A society that accepts people for what they are is not homophobic or biased. Gays do not need to word 'marriage' in order to have equality and fair treatment. The gays that I know personally are not hung up on the marriage thing, they think its a joke because they know whats really behind it.

race and sex are not analogous when it comes to marriage.

Why not are you denying that interracial marriages used to be banned just like we are currently banning homosexual marriages?

 

[Redfish]

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

I have gay relatives and friends. I love and respect every one of them. A society that accepts people for what they are is not homophobic or biased. Gays do not need to word 'marriage' in order to have equality and fair treatment. The gays that I know personally are not hung up on the marriage thing, they think its a joke because they know whats really behind it.

race and sex are not analogous when it comes to marriage.

Why not are you denying that interracial marriages used to be banned just like we are currently banning homosexual marriages?

interracial marriage was once banned-------------those marriages are now legal, as they should be. Those marriages also consist of one man and one woman. not two men or two women.

your attempt at analogy FAILS

 

[Care4all]

^^^^red herring. you refuse to understand the real issue. it has nothing to do with tolerance or equal treatment. it has to do with the survival of our culture.

Is it? Or are you moving the goalposts yet again.

However you make an interesting point.
While reading Thomas Hardy (Tess of the d'Urbervilles I believe) I came upon a thought that was interesting. Basically the father has the last life of a three life tenancy agreement. He dies. The family get kicked out and Hardy laments this loss of village life having to move to the big city. He's clearly making a point with this.
My thought was that culture simply can't stand still. It was changing in the 1800s. It changed in the 1700s. US culture in 1776 was nothing like US culture in 2014.
In fact, culture that stands still goes stagnant, people don't care any more. I've lived in various countries and the old traditions are dying out. Be it Bull Fighting in Spain, Morris Dancing in the UK or whatever, it's all changing.

You want culture to survive. Tough, it won't. Nothing you can do about it. It will change, it will adapt. US culture is a massive mix of many cultures coming together. Hispanic culture is mixing and changing with Anglo Saxon culture, which has mixed with black African culture, and so on and on and on.

Don't fight it. There's nothing anyone has ever been able to do to stop this.

you may be right. the following cultures changed as you describe----------and collapsed
Rome, Greece, Mayans, Aztecs, Sumarians, Egyptians.

if we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. A culture with no sense of right and wrong will fail, every time.

Why has China survived for 6000 years? because their culture has remained basically unchanged as to morals and right and wrong. We may disagree with them, but they will probably own us in 100 years or so.

Really? their culture hasn;t changed? With one child policies for the poor and forced abortions? china was not number one 2000 years ago, and they have still never hit number 1 in the world 2000 years later....

 

[frigidweirdo]

you may be right. the following cultures changed as you describe----------and collapsed
Rome, Greece, Mayans, Aztecs, Sumarians, Egyptians.

if we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. A culture with no sense of right and wrong will fail, every time.

The US govt learn from history? Wait, the US basically handed ISIS weapons on a plate. Just like they did to the Taliban, Saddam and many others who used them against the US. The US is on a downhill spiral anyone.

You say a culture with no sense of write and wrong will fail.

Problem is, most people assume that right is by individuals being able to do what they like as long as they don't hurt others as being right. And they see the govt telling people who they can and can't marry as wrong.

So, you're right, and you're on the wrong side of right too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

interracial marriage was once banned-------------those marriages are now legal, as they should be. Those marriages also consist of one man and one woman. not two men or two women.

your attempt at analogy FAILS

"Gay marriage was once banned------------those marriages are now legal, as they should be. Those marriage also consist of two consenting adults."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why has China survived for 6000 years? because their culture has remained basically unchanged as to morals and right and wrong. We may disagree with them, but they will probably own us in 100 years or so.

Well, I'm certain that the rubbish pop music in China wasn't there 6,000 years ago.

China is one of the LEAST moral places I think I've ever been. They spit in the streets, they have their kids piss in the streets in front of everyone, the old people are generally unhygienic and disgusting. The people in general are some of the most selfish people on the planet.

 

[BluesLegend]

Many believe that gay marriage harms society and would lead to all forms of multiple marriage. I am one of those.

If you think otherwise, fine. Is it to be a crime to disagree with some mandated government societal policy?

Thats the real danger here------------thought control and punishment for illegal thoughts and beliefs.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't "say" what you want to say. I believe the issue is that of harm, for example a law that states two homosexuals can't be married. In that case a tangible harm has been done to those two homosexuals. In the case of those homosexuals being allowed to be married and the government recognizing said marriage the harm done to people in opposition is not tangible, it is more a harm to their "pride and prejudice."

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

So if someone disagrees you call them a homophobic bigot who spits on gays and back this up with an apples and oranges comparison. Yeah that's tolerant.

 

[BlindBoo]

What Is Wrong With Liberals??

The OP would be well-advised to instead find out what's wrong with conservatives.

For example, one of her fellow rightwing loons thinks private citizens critical of talk radio constitutes a 'violation' of free speech.

Look who's talking your fellow liberal JFK Junior thinks anyone who dares disagree with global warming should be convicted of a crime and sent to jail.

Yeah right, except he doesn't think that.

Yeah right except he's on tape saying exactly that. OH SNAP!

Yeah sure, by anyone you obviously mean legislator who take payola and by disagree you obviously mean they have some sort of sway on public policy.......Sure he said exactly that........

 

[BlindBoo]

Sending advisors and arms is not the same as sending 500,000 combat troops, of which 58,000 for nothing.
The deaths in viet nam are on Kennedy and Johnson. I lived through that crap, I know what happened.

No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.

Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.

No, unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs regardless of party. the 58,000 americans died as a direct result of the escalation under Kennedy and Johnson, not because Ike sent a few advisors.

Funny that you skip Nixon, but not real funny.

there were deaths under Nixon. He also ended it be declaring defeat. Then what we were trying to prevent happened. The "communists" took over. Was Viet Nam ever a threat to the USA? What did those 58,000 americans die for?

He scuttled the peace talks in 68. How many lives did that cost?

Yes Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - John Aloysius Farrell - POLITICO Magazine

 

[BluesLegend]

What Is Wrong With Liberals??

The OP would be well-advised to instead find out what's wrong with conservatives.

For example, one of her fellow rightwing loons thinks private citizens critical of talk radio constitutes a 'violation' of free speech.

Look who's talking your fellow liberal JFK Junior thinks anyone who dares disagree with global warming should be convicted of a crime and sent to jail.

Yeah right, except he doesn't think that.

Yeah right except he's on tape saying exactly that. OH SNAP!

Yeah sure, by anyone you obviously mean legislator who take payola and by disagree you obviously mean they have some sort of sway on public policy.......Sure he said exactly that........

That's some classic what's wrong with liberals shit right there, first you deny then when its pointed out the guy is on tape saying it you deflect.

 

[RKMBrown]

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

I have gay relatives and friends. I love and respect every one of them. A society that accepts people for what they are is not homophobic or biased. Gays do not need to word 'marriage' in order to have equality and fair treatment. The gays that I know personally are not hung up on the marriage thing, they think its a joke because they know whats really behind it.

race and sex are not analogous when it comes to marriage.

Why not are you denying that interracial marriages used to be banned just like we are currently banning homosexual marriages?

interracial marriage was once banned-------------those marriages are now legal, as they should be. Those marriages also consist of one man and one woman. not two men or two women.

your attempt at analogy FAILS

What changed? Why was banned before and now it's not? Can you say it? Why were the bigots wrong before but this time the bigots have it right?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think anyone is saying you can't "say" what you want to say. I believe the issue is that of harm, for example a law that states two homosexuals can't be married. In that case a tangible harm has been done to those two homosexuals. In the case of those homosexuals being allowed to be married and the government recognizing said marriage the harm done to people in opposition is not tangible, it is more a harm to their "pride and prejudice."

two gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.

the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.

BS

First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?

Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.

Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?

It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.

If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.

Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.

Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?

Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?

So if someone disagrees you call them a homophobic bigot who spits on gays and back this up with an apples and oranges comparison. Yeah that's tolerant.

How is spitting on interracial marriages any different than spitting on homosexual marriages? In both cases the marriages were between consenting adults. In both cases the marriages were banned by bigots. How is racial discrimination based on religious fears of hell on earth and rapture coming with racial mixing any different than homophobic discrimination based on religious fears of an ensuing Babylon, hell on earth and rapture coming with homosexual marriages?

Are they not both bigotry against minority couples based on fear uncertainty and doubt trumpeted at them by religious zealots who place the crown on their heads?

As for your request that I be tolerant of bigotry. Puleze.

 

[BlindBoo]

What Is Wrong With Liberals??

The OP would be well-advised to instead find out what's wrong with conservatives.

For example, one of her fellow rightwing loons thinks private citizens critical of talk radio constitutes a 'violation' of free speech.

Look who's talking your fellow liberal JFK Junior thinks anyone who dares disagree with global warming should be convicted of a crime and sent to jail.

Yeah right, except he doesn't think that.

Yeah right except he's on tape saying exactly that. OH SNAP!

Yeah sure, by anyone you obviously mean legislator who take payola and by disagree you obviously mean they have some sort of sway on public policy.......Sure he said exactly that........

That's some classic what's wrong with liberals shit right there, first you deny then when its pointed out the guy is on tape saying it you deflect.

You must be listening to someone else. Post the link to where RFK Jr. say "anyone" who dares "disagree" with global warming should be convicted of a crime and sent to jail.

A Classic Pseudo-Con who can't think for themself.

Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.” "