Gay Marriage get used to it

[midcan5]

While progress is slow for many and impossible for some, humans do eventually do the right thing and recognize if rights are to mean anything, they need to mean something for everyone. Slowly from the cave we move....

Richard Just on the Gay Marriage Ruling

"What's more, as EJ Graff predicted in a wonderful piece she wrote for TNR around the time that Massachusetts gay couples began marrying, state court decisions that permit gay marriage are unlikely to spark a backlash within those states; in fact, they are likely to do the opposite--they are likely to solidify the consensus in favor of gay marriage. That's because gay marriage is much more threatening in theory than in practice. Conservative arguments against gay marriage all rest on dire predictions about how it will tear apart the country's social fabric. Once gay marriage is a reality and those predictions don't come true, the arguments against gay marriage start to look silly at best, cruel at worst. EJ's predictions were vindicated in Massachusetts. In February 2004, according to The Boston Globe, a majority of residents (53 percent) opposed gay marriage; by March 2005, just ten months after gay marriages began taking place, a majority (56 percent) supported them. Why did so many people change their minds once gay marriage was a reality? I'm guessing many of them went through the same evolution as the Massachusetts legislator who explained why he switched sides on the issue in the years after the state court made it legal: "I couldn't take away the happiness those people have been able to enjoy.""

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/16/richard-just-on-the-gay-marriage-ruling.aspx

[Classact]

If gay marriage is progress then so is marring your daughter, after all they love each other.

[jimnyc]

I'm more getting used to watching the States implement specific definitions via their respective constitutions, as Cali will likely do once the people get to speak out on the matter - again.

The overwhelming majority of normal people don't want homosexuality accepted as part of society, get used to it.

[Yurt]

if this is progress, where do we go next? what 'marriage'/relationship do you want to legalize next?

[DragonStryk72]

If gay marriage is progress then so is marring your daughter, after all they love each other.

ah yes, the "shove my head up my ass" argument. Wondering who was going to go there first, I mean, really, I'm actually surprised that you were at least basically creative, instead of going after the tired ass run of bestiality arguments that usually get shovelled out.

Hey, how many people in Massachusetts are campaigning to be able to marry their daughters? oh yeah, none. Moot argument, with nothing to do with the point at hand. Incest is not homosexuality

[midcan5]

DragonStryk72, good post.


Slippery slope arguments are the refuge of those too lazy, too immature, or too uneducated to consider another point of view than their own.

[dread]

ah yes, the "shove my head up my ass" argument. Wondering who was going to go there first, I mean, really, I'm actually surprised that you were at least basically creative, instead of going after the tired ass run of bestiality arguments that usually get shovelled out.

Hey, how many people in Massachusetts are campaigning to be able to marry their daughters? oh yeah, none. Moot argument, with nothing to do with the point at hand. Incest is not homosexuality



I see you dont live in say Utah, Arizona, and um Texas.

But what is so tiring of the beastiality arguement? You agree with this type of shit?

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/europeans-pay-big-for-beastiality-at-barnyard-brothels/

[avatar4321]

DragonStryk72, good post.


Slippery slope arguments are the refuge of those too lazy, too immature, or too uneducated to consider another point of view than their own.

except the fact that gay marriage being legalized isnt the start of the slippery slope. It's the slope towards the bottom. The fact is people have been pointing out for years that if we keep tolerating certain behavior than sooner or later gay marriage will come. You guys proclaimed there was no slippery slope then. But this demonstrates for a fact that there indeed is.

Ignoring the slippery slope demonstrates that you are completely ignorant of human nature, history, how interest groups try to incrementalize their radical agendas to get their accepted behavior approved of by society. It also demonstrates your inability to actually deal with the slippery slope argument if you have to resort to name calling and marginalization to deal with it. Rather than provide evidence for your position, you have to act as though the opposition is stupid, as though that actually supports youre argument.

Typical liberal distraction technique. Cant deal with the message to attack the messenger.

[Yurt]

DragonStryk72, good post.


Slippery slope arguments are the refuge of those too lazy, too immature, or too uneducated to consider another point of view than their own.

translation:

i'm an idiot that has to resort to ad hominem's to make myself feel intelligent

[midcan5]

translation:

i'm an idiot that has to resort to ad hominem's to make myself feel intelligent

So for you slippery slope arguments are good argument? You do realize that quote above applies to you as well as whoever was using ad hom. lol

[midcan5]

except the fact that gay marriage being legalized isnt the start of the slippery slope. It's the slope towards the bottom. The fact is people have been pointing out for years that if we keep tolerating certain behavior than sooner or later gay marriage will come. You guys proclaimed there was no slippery slope then. But this demonstrates for a fact that there indeed is.

The times they are a changing....sorry, took a long time to free the slaves or give women the vote too. You know those past slippery slopes.

[Yurt]

So for you slippery slope arguments are good argument? You do realize that quote above applies to you as well as whoever was using ad hom. lol

just using debate form you can understand

yes or no: the traditional definition of marriage is a bond between man and woman.

[Classact]

ah yes, the "shove my head up my ass" argument. Wondering who was going to go there first, I mean, really, I'm actually surprised that you were at least basically creative, instead of going after the tired ass run of bestiality arguments that usually get shovelled out.

Hey, how many people in Massachusetts are campaigning to be able to marry their daughters? oh yeah, none. Moot argument, with nothing to do with the point at hand. Incest is not homosexualityHomosexuality is a birth defect, kind of like polio, no reason to make fun of it nor celebrate it, but absolutely no reason to consider it normal. Look for a cure like was found for polio.

The mob enjoys the expected norm and gay people are not the expected norm. In San Fran or Greenwich Village they are the expected norm so if all people remained in their expected norms we would all be much more happy because no one would upset our expected norms. It's kind of like peeing on the side of the road facing traffic waving as the bus goes by, it's a shock to the norm, usually we make laws against shocking the norm. Guess we will have to work on one.

[avatar4321]

The times they are a changing....sorry, took a long time to free the slaves or give women the vote too. You know those past slippery slopes.

The problem with change is that change for change's sake is not good. Change is only good if its outcomes are good. This is not a good outcome. The further breakdown and devaluation of the family is always a bad outcome.

Also, i dont know that anyone ever made slippery slope arguments with slavery or women voting. But then the truth never was a big concern for you.

[Abbey Marie]

ah yes, the "shove my head up my ass" argument. Wondering who was going to go there first, I mean, really, I'm actually surprised that you were at least basically creative, instead of going after the tired ass run of bestiality arguments that usually get shovelled out.

Hey, how many people in Massachusetts are campaigning to be able to marry their daughters? oh yeah, none. Moot argument, with nothing to do with the point at hand. Incest is not homosexuality

Gays weren't seriously campaigning for marriage a long time ago, either. Changes like these take time, but eventually, sadly, we get there.

[Sitarro]

I watched the cute little gay wedding on "Brothers and Sisters" the other night, is that an official DNC sponsored show? They were able to get all of the talking points in one half of a show. Last year it was Sally Fields fretting about her son in Iraq, now she's all smiles as another one gets pretend married to his boyfriend....... it was just adorable. I doubt that they will show the pretend divorce show though.

[Missileman]

Homosexuality is a birth defect, kind of like polio,

Polio isn't anything like a birth defect it's a virus.

[Mr. P]

Gays weren't seriously campaigning for marriage a long time ago, either. Changes like these take time, but eventually, sadly, we get there.

Gays have just started coming out in large numbers the last 25 yrs or so. All they're doing is asking for their Constitutional rights. Equal protection stuff. I don't accept this as "marriage" that is a religious based term, IMO, but a civil union instead. Affording these folks the same rights heterosexuals have in a union, be it performed in church or by a Justice of the peace.

It's a legal issue NOT a religious one...if it is religious, we all need to back-up and review why we have problems with other religions and their beliefs.

IMO, there's nothing sad about equal protection. How long ago was it Negro's were not allowed to vote? Things change, so do bias, fears, judgmental people and those who deny others.

[Classact]

Polio isn't anything like a birth defect it's a virus.Thanks! But it is an abnormality from normality, some genes are mixed up causing the nature's plan not to work. In nature the abnormal would be destroyed by the normal, humans on the other hand are compassionate and excuse nature for the mistake.

If I were to go to a maternity ward and see a guy looking at Tommy and say, I hope Tommy grows up to be gay, gays are so cute and outgoing... and about that time the guy cold cocks me... when the police come I would be charged for "Provoking speeches and gestures" and the guy that assaulted would be found not guilty of assault because I provoked it.

The point is the reason gays aren't considered normal and allowed to marry already is because it is either considered a freak show or a religious taboo. To me it is a freak show and I wouldn't tell a father of a newborn, hope your son grows up to be a fag.

[Missileman]

Thanks! But it is an abnormality from normality, some genes are mixed up causing the nature's plan not to work. In nature the abnormal would be destroyed by the normal, humans on the other hand are compassionate and excuse nature for the mistake.

If I were to go to a maternity ward and see a guy looking at Tommy and say, I hope Tommy grows up to be gay, gays are so cute and outgoing... and about that time the guy cold cocks me... when the police come I would be charged for "Provoking speeches and gestures" and the guy that assaulted would be found not guilty of assault because I provoked it.

The point is the reason gays aren't considered normal and allowed to marry already is because it is either considered a freak show or a religious taboo. To me it is a freak show and I wouldn't tell a father of a newborn, hope your son grows up to be a fag.

Blind people aren't normal...neither are deaf people, mutes, albinos, midgets, paraplegics, etc, etc...the list would be endless.

[Abbey Marie]

Gays have just started coming out in large numbers the last 25 yrs or so. All they're doing is asking for their Constitutional rights. Equal protection stuff. I don't accept this as "marriage" that is a religious based term, IMO, but a civil union instead. Affording these folks the same rights heterosexuals have in a union, be it performed in church or by a Justice of the peace.

It's a legal issue NOT a religious one...if it is religious, we all need to back-up and review why we have problems with other religions and their beliefs.

IMO, there's nothing sad about equal protection. How long ago was it Negro's were not allowed to vote? Things change, so do bias, fears, judgmental people and those who deny others.

That's exactly my point. Gays haven't been at the fight too long, and these freakish activites that others have mentioned will have their day as well.

Equal protection, ey? Not religious? If they are allowed to have civil unions, why do they need marriage? What rights were they denied in civil unions? Bequest via Will? No. Hospital visitation? No. Adoption? Not these days, just ask Rosie. Etc., etc. The SC in CA even stated that there were no more rights to be had from marriage than they already had in civil unions.

That leaves one thing to be gained from marriage: to be seen "as normal as" hetero couples. But however gays try to grab onto pieces of paper or supposed legal rights to get this, it is an outcome no one can control. As evidenced by the votes when the public is able to vote on this very issue.

As for what is sad or not, that is indeed a matter of opinion. I have given mine, and I stand by it 100%.

[Mr. P]

That's exactly my point. Gays haven't been at the fight too long, and these freakish activites that others have mentioned will have their day as well.

Equal protection, ey? Not religious? If they are allowed to have civil unions, why do they need marriage? What rights were they denied in civil unions? Bequest via Will? No. Hospital visitation? No. Adoption? Not these days, just ask Rosie. Etc., etc. The SC in CA even stated that there were no more rights to be had from marriage than they already had in civil unions.

That leaves one thing to be gained from marriage: to be seen "as normal as" hetero couples. But however gays try to grab onto pieces of paper or supposed legal rights to get this, it is an outcome no one can control. As evidenced by the votes when the public is able to vote on this very issue.

As for what is sad or not, that is indeed a matter of opinion. I have given mine, and I stand by it 100%.

Same here.

[Yurt]

That's exactly my point. Gays haven't been at the fight too long, and these freakish activites that others have mentioned will have their day as well.

Equal protection, ey? Not religious? If they are allowed to have civil unions, why do they need marriage? What rights were they denied in civil unions? Bequest via Will? No. Hospital visitation? No. Adoption? Not these days, just ask Rosie. Etc., etc. The SC in CA even stated that there were no more rights to be had from marriage than they already had in civil unions.

That leaves one thing to be gained from marriage: to be seen "as normal as" hetero couples. But however gays try to grab onto pieces of paper or supposed legal rights to get this, it is an outcome no one can control. As evidenced by the votes when the public is able to vote on this very issue.

As for what is sad or not, that is indeed a matter of opinion. I have given mine, and I stand by it 100%.

can atheist get married? a person that follows satan, can they get married?

[Classact]

Blind people aren't normal...neither are deaf people, mutes, albinos, midgets, paraplegics, etc, etc...the list would be endless.Well I've stated on the other gay threads where I stand and I do agree with civil unions to protect gays rights when they commit to live together. Most states have common law that would protect couples regardless of living arrangements.

My point is that gays cannot litigate or legislate love and understanding. Demanding a marriage certificate will not legitimate a freak show regardless how many judges agree with that position.

Gays are their own worst enemy because they demand to be a shock to the norm equal to standing beside the road peeing and waving to cars passing by... they draw attention to themselves and especially their sexuality and then demand to be treated with equal respect as a "normal" person.

If all gays would act like mature adults and stop flaunting their sexuality then perhaps the mob would be more considerate towards their personal domestic arrangement desires. I could give a crap if two men shared a house or two women if they didn't act so abnormal. To me if they acted normal, as other adults then they could be considered as two brothers or two sisters or two friends sharing a dwelling. Faggots do not need to rear children, it is unnatural so if they want to do natural stuff then go strait. Don't ask and don't tell is a great federal position on the issue but like I said I would support a legal arrangement but not marriage.

[bullypulpit]

One good reason to allow gay men to marry is so that Liza Minnelli doesn't get married again.

[avatar4321]

One good reason to allow gay men to marry is so that Liza Minnelli doesn't get married again.

I don't think that reason outweighs all the reasons against it.

[bullypulpit]

I don't think that reason outweighs all the reasons against it.

Wow, you really don't have a sense of humor. Now as to those reasons to prohibit the marriage of same gender couples, could you enumerate them? I mean aside from religious doctrine and you own moral indignation.

Is there ANY demonstrable harm to the community at large or even to yourself in permitting same-gender couples to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and privileges enjoyed by their married straight counterparts? I have yet to see any evidence that everyone in Massachusetts woke up gay the morning after same-gender couples gained the right to marry in that state.

[bullypulpit]

can atheist get married? a person that follows satan, can they get married?

I'm an atheist and I got married. We had a civil ceremony. Your questions are but poorly constructed straw men.

[bullypulpit]

Wow, you really don't have a sense of humor. Now as to those reasons to prohibit the marriage of same gender couples, could you enumerate them? I mean aside from religious doctrine and you own moral indignation.

Is there ANY demonstrable harm to the community at large or even to yourself in permitting same-gender couples to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and privileges enjoyed by their married straight counterparts? I have yet to see any evidence that everyone in Massachusetts woke up gay the morning after same-gender couples gained the right to marry in that state.

Still no answer...Avi?

[Yurt]

I'm an atheist and I got married. We had a civil ceremony. Your questions are but poorly constructed straw men.

if you had an ounce of intelligence, you would actually see my questions are more in line with your view than those who oppose gay marriage. the traditional view of marriage stems from religion, primarily the 3 main religions, judiasm, christianity and kilsum, i mean islam.... for that that marry in religious terms, how can one accept a follower of lucifer to get married and not a homosexual couple? both are great sins in the eyes of the lord and one might posit that rejecting Jesus and following satan with all your heart is the more the wrong choice.

good luck on getting the straw pulled out of your ears....:cool:

[bullypulpit]

if you had an ounce of intelligence, you would actually see my questions are more in line with your view than those who oppose gay marriage. the traditional view of marriage stems from religion, primarily the 3 main religions, judiasm, christianity and kilsum, i mean islam.... for that that marry in religious terms, how can one accept a follower of lucifer to get married and not a homosexual couple? both are great sins in the eyes of the lord and one might posit that rejecting Jesus and following satan with all your heart is the more the wrong choice.

good luck on getting the straw pulled out of your ears....:cool:


Nice try old son. The only interest the state has in a marriage lies in the contractual relationship established in merging the fortunes of the individuals involved. The particular religious rituals involved are, from that standpoint, irrelevant. Whether their hardshell Baptists or Zoroastrians...Doesn't make any difference to the state.

[Missileman]

Nice try old son. The only interest the state has in a marriage lies in the contractual relationship established in merging the fortunes of the individuals involved. The particular religious rituals involved are, from that standpoint, irrelevant. Whether their hardshell Baptists or Zoroastrians...Doesn't make any difference to the state.

Bully...Yurt was clearly speaking against the notion that marriage can be denied simply because the couple doesn't share the same values as the followers of middle-eastern based religions. His intent I believe was to highlight the cherry-picking nature of the objections being raised.

[CockySOB]

Homosexuality is a birth defect, kind of like polio, no reason to make fun of it nor celebrate it, but absolutely no reason to consider it normal. Look for a cure like was found for polio.

You might wish to double-check your assertions before posting something idiotic like that. It makes you sound like a dumbfuck liberal.

Polio is a viral illness, not a birth defect. You are better served by using mental illness as your analogy, as most mental illness does have a genetic factor (hereditary).

[Pale Rider]

You might wish to double-check your assertions before posting something idiotic like that. It makes you sound like a dumbfuck liberal.

Polio is a viral illness, not a birth defect. You are better served by using mental illness as your analogy, as most mental illness does have a genetic factor (hereditary).

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf

[CockySOB]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf

What's your point, Pale? That the APA bowed to political pressure from the liberal apologists for homosexuality and removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases? That's a well-known fact.

[Missileman]

What's your point, Pale? That the APA bowed to political pressure from the liberal apologists for homosexuality and removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases? That's a well-known fact.

Just like doctors bowed to pressure from chemists and removed malaria from the list of diseases caused by swamp gas?

[bullypulpit]

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf

Pale, your link offers nothing more than the usual religious right wing-nut screed opposing homosexuality that you always fall back on. It offers not one shred of of objective evidence to support its claims and is little more than an extended exercise in ill informed, inflammatory rhetoric.

I repeat, again, there was no "homosexual lobby" pressuring the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was the weight of empirical evidence gathered from numerous, independent studies that led to this decision. Until you, or the sources you cite, provide objective and independently verifiable evidence to the contrary, your claims remain nothing more than right wing urban mythology.

[Pale Rider]

Pale, your link offers nothing more than the usual religious right wing-nut screed opposing homosexuality that you always fall back on. It offers not one shred of of objective evidence to support its claims and is little more than an extended exercise in ill informed, inflammatory rhetoric.

I repeat, again, there was no "homosexual lobby" pressuring the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was the weight of empirical evidence gathered from numerous, independent studies that led to this decision. Until you, or the sources you cite, provide objective and independently verifiable evidence to the contrary, your claims remain nothing more than right wing urban mythology.

Yeah, there was bull. It's been proven to you time after time after time only to have you deny the truth while looking right at it. Everybody knows it but you.

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homosexuality_and_psychiatry.htm)

[gabosaurus]

The overwhelming majority of homophobic people don't want homosexuality accepted as part of society, get used to it.

"Normal" has nothing to do it with...

[bullypulpit]

Yeah, there was bull. It's been proven to you time after time after time only to have you deny the truth while looking right at it. Everybody knows it but you.

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homosexuality_and_psychiatry.htm)

:lame2:

".jesus-is-savior.com"...Yeah, a real objective and unbiased source there. Oh and never mind that the late Dr. Socarides' research was motivated by the fact that his son, Richard, is gay. Apparently he couldn't "cure" his own son. <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/wall1.gif>

[Pale Rider]

:lame2:

".jesus-is-savior.com"...Yeah, a real objective and unbiased source there. Oh and never mind that the late Dr. Socarides' research was motivated by the fact that his son, Richard, is gay. Apparently he couldn't "cure" his own son. <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/wall1.gif>

The website name has got nothing to do with all the volumes and volumes of research and testimony by "THE" people that were there, along with all the facts, dates and proof.

You can't discredit the message just because of the messenger this time bull. Ain't workin' bud.

[Nate]

:lame2:

".jesus-is-savior.com"...Yeah, a real objective and unbiased source there.

Genetic fallacy.

[bullypulpit]

The website name has got nothing to do with all the volumes and volumes of research and testimony by "THE" people that were there, along with all the facts, dates and proof.

You can't discredit the message just because of the messenger this time bull. Ain't workin' bud.

Your link cited nothing beyond the opinion of its author...Which doesn't constitute evidence. As for Dr Satinover, one can only wonder why his writings only appear in the popular press.

[Classact]

Maybe this link will assist http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2008/05/quasi-marriage.html

[actsnoblemartin]

:clap:

Thank you for showing their is still some common sense left on this board

:salute:


ah yes, the "shove my head up my ass" argument. Wondering who was going to go there first, I mean, really, I'm actually surprised that you were at least basically creative, instead of going after the tired ass run of bestiality arguments that usually get shovelled out.

Hey, how many people in Massachusetts are campaigning to be able to marry their daughters? oh yeah, none. Moot argument, with nothing to do with the point at hand. Incest is not homosexuality

[actsnoblemartin]

yurt is one of the most fair minded people on this board, and i dont think people who disagree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality should be name called, insulted, or silenced.

Reasonable disagreement is fine.

whether its pro homosexual, or pro traditional marriage or whatever.

"he who disagrees with me is NOT my enemy"

[actsnoblemartin]

a simple question for you or anyone

why was homosexuality considered a mental illness in the first place, please provide links along with your analysis.

also, please provide links, along with your analysis of why it was taken off the list of mental illnesses


What's your point, Pale? That the APA bowed to political pressure from the liberal apologists for homosexuality and removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases? That's a well-known fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

can I get a head's up on what I should expect to "get used to" next.....first, no prayer....then killing the unborn.....now marriage between same sex partners....I would like to get a running start on whatever is next.....

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont agree with the attitude of get used to it.

Its very arrogant, we can disagree, we can fight for what we believe it but for someone to say to you, oh youll just have to get used it, is very condescending and rude.

as if you have no right to object, or disagree.


can I get a head's up on what I should expect to "get used to" next.....first, no prayer....then killing the unborn.....now marriage between same sex partners....I would like to get a running start on whatever is next.....

[Missileman]

can I get a head's up on what I should expect to "get used to" next.....first, no prayer....then killing the unborn.....now marriage between same sex partners....I would like to get a running start on whatever is next.....

You've been prevented from praying?

[actsnoblemartin]

forgive me, for butting in, but he might mean school prayer?


You've been prevented from praying?

:dunno:

[Missileman]

forgive me, for butting in, but he might mean school prayer?



:dunno:

I know exactly what the premise of the argument is...and it's a lame one. Wanna get back to the good old days? Let's roll the clock back and join the idiot Muslims in the dark ages. :rolleyes:

[actsnoblemartin]

fair enough :coffee:


I know exactly what the premise of the argument is...and it's a lame one. Wanna get back to the good old days? Let's roll the clock back and join the idiot Muslims in the dark ages. :rolleyes:

[PostmodernProphet]

I know exactly what the premise of the argument is...and it's a lame one. Wanna get back to the good old days? Let's roll the clock back and join the idiot Muslims in the dark ages. :rolleyes:

alas, who am I to gainsay a "progressive".....

[Missileman]

alas, who am I to gainsay a "progressive".....

Ever the persecuted victim huh? Tell us...how long has it taken you to get used to women voting, the end of slavery, electric lighting, and interracial marriage? I'll bet getting used to automobiles has been especially traumatic for you.

[actsnoblemartin]

Ever the persecuted victim huh? Tell us...how long has it taken you to get used to women voting, the end of slavery, electric lighting, and interracial marriage? I'll bet getting used to automobiles has been especially traumatic for you.

:lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

Ever the persecuted victim huh? Tell us...how long has it taken you to get used to women voting, the end of slavery, electric lighting, and interracial marriage? I'll bet getting used to automobiles has been especially traumatic for you.

how long did it take for you to get over the delight you experienced at being able to kill the unborn?......

[Silver]

a simple question for you or anyone

why was homosexuality considered a mental illness in the first place, please provide links along with your analysis.

also, please provide links, along with your analysis of why it was taken off the list of mental illnesses

You answer the questions for yourself......

Millions of individuals interact everyday and not one of them kills the other....
Normal ?
Is murdering your neighbor normal ?

Sunny skys and mild weather 95% of the time at some locations....
Normal ?
Rainly and cool weather 95%of the time at others locations...
Normal ?
90% of men find women sexually desirable....
Normal ?
90% of women find men sexually desirable....
Normal ?
Nature REQUIRES that men and women copulate to continue the species...
Normal ?

What is normal?
Did this word loss it meaning ?
How about abnormal ?
If there is 'normal' there must be 'abnormal'....

Is it now obsolete...?
How about right and wrong...do these consepts have a place in society ?

Is the desire to stick you penis in another mans anus normal.....?
Is this what nature intended for the male species ?
Is this a "natural desire" for men ...... ?

How about copulation with other species ?
Normal ?
Is that what "nature" intended ?

Is anything "normal" behavior ?
Or is all behavior "normal" ?

Do YOU draw the line at some behavior but not at other behavior ?

It then begs the question, who are YOU to draw any lines about behavior ?

[Sitarro]

While progress is slow for many and impossible for some, humans do eventually do the right thing and recognize if rights are to mean anything, they need to mean something for everyone. Slowly from the cave we move....

Richard Just on the Gay Marriage Ruling

"What's more, as EJ Graff predicted in a wonderful piece she wrote for TNR around the time that Massachusetts gay couples began marrying, state court decisions that permit gay marriage are unlikely to spark a backlash within those states; in fact, they are likely to do the opposite--they are likely to solidify the consensus in favor of gay marriage. That's because gay marriage is much more threatening in theory than in practice. Conservative arguments against gay marriage all rest on dire predictions about how it will tear apart the country's social fabric. Once gay marriage is a reality and those predictions don't come true, the arguments against gay marriage start to look silly at best, cruel at worst. EJ's predictions were vindicated in Massachusetts. In February 2004, according to The Boston Globe, a majority of residents (53 percent) opposed gay marriage; by March 2005, just ten months after gay marriages began taking place, a majority (56 percent) supported them. Why did so many people change their minds once gay marriage was a reality? I'm guessing many of them went through the same evolution as the Massachusetts legislator who explained why he switched sides on the issue in the years after the state court made it legal: "I couldn't take away the happiness those people have been able to enjoy.""

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/16/richard-just-on-the-gay-marriage-ruling.aspx

More cases of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, clogged courts with a magnitude of divorce that will dwarf the rate of heterosexual marriage, more tasteless movies, clothing, plays and parades ......... get used to it.

[Silver]

martin wants to be an activist for the homosexuals ....

don't you want to hear his position.....

[bullypulpit]

More cases of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, clogged courts with a magnitude of divorce that will dwarf the rate of heterosexual marriage, more tasteless movies, clothing, plays and parades ......... get used to it.

Do you have ANY links supporting your assertions? Didn't think so.

<blockquote>The current divorce trends in Massachusetts counter claims of same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriage. In fact, for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the U.S. national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000 and close to the national average of 2.0 back in 1940. In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady decline making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

States which have taken aggressive action against same-sex marriage have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The preliminary data from 2004 and 2005—from the 17 U.S. states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage—presents a striking picture: the group of U.S. states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same-sex marriage-friendly states. - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_divorce_rates>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

I've said it before, and for those who still can't accept it, there is no demonstrable harm in granting same-gender couples legal recognition of their relationship through civil-unions, marriage or whatever you want to call it. Get used to it.

[glockmail]

Do you have ANY links supporting your assertions? Didn't think so.

<blockquote>The current divorce trends in Massachusetts counter claims of same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriage. In fact, for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the U.S. national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000 and close to the national average of 2.0 back in 1940. In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady decline making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

States which have taken aggressive action against same-sex marriage have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The preliminary data from 2004 and 2005—from the 17 U.S. states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage—presents a striking picture: the group of U.S. states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same-sex marriage-friendly states. - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_divorce_rates>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

I've said it before, and for those who still can't accept it, there is no demonstrable harm in granting same-gender couples legal recognition of their relationship through civil-unions, marriage or whatever you want to call it. Get used to it.

The main reason why Mass divorce rates are low is likely that it has the highest percent Catholics of any other State, except Rhode Island. Queers have only been allowed to "marry" there for a short time now, so their Court enforced edict hasn't had a chance to affect the statistics yet.

[glockmail]

And Catholics have one of the lowest divorce rates of Christian religions:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/images/denom_divorce.jpghttp://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

[theHawk]

While progress is slow for many and impossible for some, humans do eventually do the right thing and recognize if rights are to mean anything, they need to mean something for everyone. Slowly from the cave we move....

Richard Just on the Gay Marriage Ruling

"What's more, as EJ Graff predicted in a wonderful piece she wrote for TNR around the time that Massachusetts gay couples began marrying, state court decisions that permit gay marriage are unlikely to spark a backlash within those states; in fact, they are likely to do the opposite--they are likely to solidify the consensus in favor of gay marriage. That's because gay marriage is much more threatening in theory than in practice. Conservative arguments against gay marriage all rest on dire predictions about how it will tear apart the country's social fabric. Once gay marriage is a reality and those predictions don't come true, the arguments against gay marriage start to look silly at best, cruel at worst. EJ's predictions were vindicated in Massachusetts. In February 2004, according to The Boston Globe, a majority of residents (53 percent) opposed gay marriage; by March 2005, just ten months after gay marriages began taking place, a majority (56 percent) supported them. Why did so many people change their minds once gay marriage was a reality? I'm guessing many of them went through the same evolution as the Massachusetts legislator who explained why he switched sides on the issue in the years after the state court made it legal: "I couldn't take away the happiness those people have been able to enjoy.""

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/16/richard-just-on-the-gay-marriage-ruling.aspx

I don't have to "get used to it".
I don't have to accept it.
I don't have to condone it.
I don't have to recognize it.

We have something called freedom in this country. Freedom of speech, and freedom of thinking the way we want to think. We don't need the liberal thought police telling us how we should feel or think about any one subject. Gays have every right to get married, the rest of us have every right to ignore them.

[actsnoblemartin]

You illustrated perfectly, the reason I am not a liberal.

I am not comfortable and think it is frankly arrogant and rude to tell/force people what to think and feel and force them to accept anything, even if this disagree, try doing that to 1.6 billion muslims


I don't have to "get used to it".
I don't have to accept it.
I don't have to condone it.
I don't have to recognize it.

We have something called freedom in this country. Freedom of speech, and freedom of thinking the way we want to think. We don't need the liberal thought police telling us how we should feel or think about any one subject. Gays have every right to get married, the rest of us have every right to ignore them.

[actsnoblemartin]

I support gay marriage, and I think what you said was 100% accurate and i agree with it


I don't have to "get used to it".
I don't have to accept it.
I don't have to condone it.
I don't have to recognize it.

We have something called freedom in this country. Freedom of speech, and freedom of thinking the way we want to think. We don't need the liberal thought police telling us how we should feel or think about any one subject. Gays have every right to get married, the rest of us have every right to ignore them.

[My Winter Storm]

Really, gay marriage isn't going to harm heterosexual marriages one iota, and I can't see why they would be concerned it would.
People should focus on their own marriages and stop worrying about other peoples relationships that frankly, have nothing to do with them.

[Yurt]

Really, gay marriage isn't going to harm heterosexual marriages one iota, and I can't see why they would be concerned it would.
People should focus on their own marriages and stop worrying about other peoples relationships that frankly, have nothing to do with them.............

[actsnoblemartin]

I believe that currently men and women are destroying their own marriages and not taking any responsibility for it


Really, gay marriage isn't going to harm heterosexual marriages one iota, and I can't see why they would be concerned it would.
People should focus on their own marriages and stop worrying about other peoples relationships that frankly, have nothing to do with them.

[DragonStryk72]

I see you dont live in say Utah, Arizona, and um Texas.

But what is so tiring of the beastiality arguement? You agree with this type of shit?

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/europeans-pay-big-for-beastiality-at-barnyard-brothels/

Because homosexuality is not incest or bestiality, or heterosexuality, or pedophilia. Bestiality, are you kidding? Well, for one, just for starters, and not by any means the beginning of the arguments against, there is no chance for consent. It is an irrelevant argument that has been pushed by people who can't make a better one.

Pedophilia: Illegal and immoral due to both the damage done the child in question, as well Illegal and immoral due to the lack of ability of the child to be mature enough physically and/or mentally to make the choice to have sex or not.

Incest: Illegal and wrong, because incest produces physical/mental mutations due to the genetic material being too close together.

Bestiality: Illegal and wrong, due to cross species (human to animal, as opposed to human to human) nature of it, as well as it being abuse to the animal in question, and the animal having no way to possibly be considered as having given consent.

Now, by all numbers, heterosexuals are the majority of all those convicted of pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, so using your own logic, then we should be banning heterosexual marriage.

But that of course, is a ludicrous argument that would destroy the credibility of the arguer. However, understand that yours is just as ludicrous. Kitchen knives have links to stabbings, we don't ban those entirely either.

[DragonStryk72]

Really, gay marriage isn't going to harm heterosexual marriages one iota, and I can't see why they would be concerned it would.
People should focus on their own marriages and stop worrying about other peoples relationships that frankly, have nothing to do with them.

Yeah, but more and more, it seems like our "leaders" (using the term loosely) are more than happy to simply keep using gay marriage to provide and easy answer to society's ills. They use it as a scapegoat, because it is an easy thing to pull off without much need to actually do anything.

[bullypulpit]

Really, gay marriage isn't going to harm heterosexual marriages one iota, and I can't see why they would be concerned it would.
People should focus on their own marriages and stop worrying about other peoples relationships that frankly, have nothing to do with them.

Indeed, unless these sorry sots are worried about their own spouses running off with someone of the same gender, same-gender couples marrying will have absolutely no impact on their lives. It speaks a great deal to their own insecurities, however.

[bullypulpit]

The main reason why Mass divorce rates are low is likely that it has the highest percent Catholics of any other State, except Rhode Island. Queers have only been allowed to "marry" there for a short time now, so their Court enforced edict hasn't had a chance to affect the statistics yet.

Ummm...since 2002, when same-gender marriages were given legal recognition in MA, the divorce rate in the state has dropped.

For your further edification...

<blockquote>Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions — WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT — the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.

Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX — the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005. - <a href=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811/Front_Page/Christian_Right_Wrong_On_Gay_Marriage_in_Massachus etts>Christian Right Wrong On Gay Marriage in Massachusetts</a></blockquote>

[glockmail]

Ummm...since 2002, when same-gender marriages were given legal recognition in MA, the divorce rate in the state has dropped.

For your further edification...

<blockquote>Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions — WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT — the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.

Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX — the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005. - <a href=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/13/14120/4811/Front_Page/Christian_Right_Wrong_On_Gay_Marriage_in_Massachus etts>Christian Right Wrong On Gay Marriage in Massachusetts</a></blockquote>
From your link: "Divorce rates in the US have been declining steadily since the the early 1980's. Massachusetts has shared in the trend and traditionally has had a divorce rate considerably lower than the national average. In fact. for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union."

[Sitarro]

The main reason why Mass divorce rates are low is likely that it has the highest percent Catholics of any other State, except Rhode Island. Queers have only been allowed to "marry" there for a short time now, so their Court enforced edict hasn't had a chance to affect the statistics yet.

Exactly, and for that matter, how many that were married there are actually from Massachusetts, their divorces wouldn't show up in the stats.

[Sitarro]

Indeed, unless these sorry sots are worried about their own spouses running off with someone of the same gender, same-gender couples marrying will have absolutely no impact on their lives. It speaks a great deal to their own insecurities, however.

Actually there will be an enormous impact on all of our lives. Just in the insurance industry alone. Fags, because they shove anything and everything up their ass, go to the hospital often........ you should know that, I'm sure you have had to stick your hand up more than one ass to retrieve a wine bottle, a light bulb or a suffocated gerbil.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually there will be an enormous impact on all of our lives. Just in the insurance industry alone. Fags, because they shove anything and everything up their ass, go to the hospital often........ you should know that, I'm sure you have had to stick your hand up more than one ass to retrieve a wine bottle, a light bulb or a suffocated gerbil.

Yes, because it isn't as though anyone else goes to the hospital for doing something blatantly stupid, I mean, hell, drunken frat guys never do anything that would be considered idiotic, and get injured from it.

Stop trying to make it be just the homosexuals who do stupid, ill-advised things while trying to get off. The numbers on heterosexuals will beat you in almost every instance available, from accidents while trying to get the downstairs pierced, to trying sexual positions that would test a contortionist, everyone who is sexually active for any length of time can come up with at least a short list of things that were just plain stupid in the pursuit of sexual gratification.

This assumption you have that the vast majority of gay people must inherently be in some continual form of trial to see exactly what will fit up their ass is also bigoted, along with being just plain old horrendously flawed. It would be just as daft as saying that all heterosexual men are continuously sticking their penis into vaginas throughout the day, in a unending tide of lust.

Why on earth there seems to still be people convinced that all the marital woes in the world can be fixed simply by gays not getting married is beyond me. The arguments against the "financial" ramifications would be moot as well, since you would have more people able to afford insurance, and thus it would balance out, and your damned premiums would not be nearly as high if the insurance companies weren't already bending you over for completely insane profits, all the while screwing you long and hard through your HMO. so don't even try to blame them for it, it's an already existant problem, and will continue to be, whether homosexuals marry or not.

[Sitarro]

Yes, because it isn't as though anyone else goes to the hospital for doing something blatantly stupid, I mean, hell, drunken frat guys never do anything that would be considered idiotic, and get injured from it.

Stop trying to make it be just the homosexuals who do stupid, ill-advised things while trying to get off. The numbers on heterosexuals will beat you in almost every instance available, from accidents while trying to get the downstairs pierced, to trying sexual positions that would test a contortionist, everyone who is sexually active for any length of time can come up with at least a short list of things that were just plain stupid in the pursuit of sexual gratification.

This assumption you have that the vast majority of gay people must inherently be in some continual form of trial to see exactly what will fit up their ass is also bigoted, along with being just plain old horrendously flawed. It would be just as daft as saying that all heterosexual men are continuously sticking their penis into vaginas throughout the day, in a unending tide of lust.

Why on earth there seems to still be people convinced that all the marital woes in the world can be fixed simply by gays not getting married is beyond me. The arguments against the "financial" ramifications would be moot as well, since you would have more people able to afford insurance, and thus it would balance out, and your damned premiums would not be nearly as high if the insurance companies weren't already bending you over for completely insane profits, all the while screwing you long and hard through your HMO. so don't even try to blame them for it, it's an already existant problem, and will continue to be, whether homosexuals marry or not.

Whatever, you and Bully should get a room and talk about how much you know about fags, I couldn't give a shit.

[Psychoblues]

What would a pussy like you know about anything like that, zero?



Exactly, and for that matter, how many that were married there are actually from Massachusetts, their divorces wouldn't show up in the stats.

Not much.

[actsnoblemartin]

this is such a bullcrap argument.

heterosexuals never do anything stupid.

like drive while talking on their sell phones

drive drunk

have unprotected sex

do drugs

or tons of other things

no fuck them, they are faggots, so fuck them, they can just die :death: right?

Gays may have self destructive behavior, but when you endure self hatred, because many people disapprove and hate you, then you will know how it feels


Actually there will be an enormous impact on all of our lives. Just in the insurance industry alone. Fags, because they shove anything and everything up their ass, go to the hospital often........ you should know that, I'm sure you have had to stick your hand up more than one ass to retrieve a wine bottle, a light bulb or a suffocated gerbil.

[Psychoblues]

martin, take some advice from an old hand. Enjoy the ignorance or treat it as entertainment at best.



this is such a bullcrap argument.

heterosexuals never do anything stupid.

like drive while talking on their sell phones

drive drunk

have unprotected sex

do drugs

or tons of other things

no fuck them, they are faggots, so fuck them, they can just die :death: right?

Gays may have self destructive behavior, but when you endure self hatred, because many people disapprove and hate you, then you will know how it feels

Thanks for the Busch, my friend!!!!!!!!!!

[actsnoblemartin]

thank you, atleast somebody else seems the idioticness of this

:laugh2:

:clap:

:clap:

:clap:


martin, take some advice from an old hand. Enjoy the ignorance or treat it as entertainment at best.




Thanks for the Busch, my friend!!!!!!!!!!

[Psychoblues]

Anytime, martin!!!!!!!



thank you, atleast somebody else seems the idioticness of this

:laugh2:

:clap:

:clap:

:clap:

You are very welcome!!!!!!!!

[actsnoblemartin]

good night my friend

take care

:cheers2:


Anytime, martin!!!!!!!




You are very welcome!!!!!!!!

[bullypulpit]

Whatever, you and Bully should get a room and talk about how much you know about fags, I couldn't give a shit.

You obviously care quite alot about it, else you wouldn't be wasting bandwidth on the issue.

[glockmail]

You obviously care quite alot about it, else you wouldn't be wasting bandwidth on the issue.
either that or he, like I, cares about the truth. :slap:

[bullypulpit]

either that or he, like I, cares about the truth. :slap:

And just what truth might that be? I mean aside from the one you pull from the deepest, darkest nether regions of your arse, that is.

[DragonStryk72]

Whatever, you and Bully should get a room and talk about how much you know about fags, I couldn't give a shit.

I'll take that win.

[glockmail]

And just what truth might that be? I mean aside from the one you pull from the deepest, darkest nether regions of your arse, that is.


I'll take that win.

As will I. :cheers2:

[actsnoblemartin]

As will I. :cheers2:

what do i win :laugh2:

[Silver]

In Lebanon , men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

So what does this show ?

that even some of the worlds nuttiest fruitcakes aren't as crazy as US Democrats....:laugh2:

[My Winter Storm]

In Lebanon , men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

So what does this show ?

that even some of the worlds nuttiest fruitcakes aren't as crazy as US Democrats....:laugh2:

That is fucking funny.:laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

I once kidded a guy I worked with about the Asian vagina as being sideways. He immediately retorted to me that he had had sex with over 400 females including approximately 100 head of sheep, cows, horses and other livestock and that he had never personally seen a sideways vagina.




In Lebanon , men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

So what does this show ?

that even some of the worlds nuttiest fruitcakes aren't as crazy as US Democrats....:laugh2:

Did I mention he was a big Reagan/Bush supporter?

I don't think he was a Democrat, ever in his life, don't 'cha know?!?!?!!!?!???!?

[midcan5]

55 YEARS !

http://www.kcby.com/news/national/19993999.html

"Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month."

[PostmodernProphet]

I once kidded a guy I worked with about the Asian vagina as being sideways. He immediately retorted to me that he had had sex with over 400 females including approximately 100 head of sheep, cows, horses and other livestock and that he had never personally seen a sideways vagina.





Did I mention he was a big Reagan/Bush supporter?

I don't think he was a Democrat, ever in his life, don't 'cha know?!?!?!!!?!???!?

I don't find it surprising that you knew someone who had sex with animals.....however, I suspect you are lying about his political alliances......if he had actually been a Republican, he would have kept his sexual activities a secret instead of bragging about them......:dance:

[Sitarro]

55 YEARS !

http://www.kcby.com/news/national/19993999.html

"Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month."

I wonder how many teams of investigators were dispatched to find these skanks.......... oh wait, thats right, they are lesbians......... they want everyone to know, whether they give a shit or not, that they are a loving, caring lesbian couple....... how cute. Show me another one that has been together as long.

[actsnoblemartin]

60 years i would have cared when they petted the kitty :laugh2:


I wonder how many teams of investigators were dispatched to find these skanks.......... oh wait, thats right, they are lesbians......... they want everyone to know, whether they give a shit or not, that they are a loving, caring lesbian couple....... how cute. Show me another one that has been together as long.

[Sitarro]

this is such a bullcrap argument.

heterosexuals never do anything stupid.

like drive while talking on their sell phones

drive drunk

have unprotected sex

do drugs

or tons of other things

no fuck them, they are faggots, so fuck them, they can just die :death: right?

Gays may have self destructive behavior, but when you endure self hatred, because many people disapprove and hate you, then you will know how it feels

So you think that a fake marriage will solve all the problems for homos? I don't think so because when all of the fanfare and the bullshit is over and they have to look in the mirror they still are looking at a freak of nature and they know it. No approval by a part of society will cure the problems they have within themselves.

[actsnoblemartin]

So you think that a fake marriage will solve all the problems for homos?

Absolutely not, that is silly. Gay divorce will happen alot too. I dont even like traditional marriage, i dont like any marriage, i think its all female fairy tale, homosexual fairy bullshit.

but I don't think so because when all of the fanfare and the bullshit is over and they have to look in the mirror they still are looking at a freak of nature and they know it.

Some say they are normal, some sturggle with it, im not their spokesman

No approval by a part of society will cure the problems they have within themselves.

exactly, anybody who says otherwise is a flaming idiot :laugh2:

[midcan5]

I wonder how many teams of investigators were dispatched to find these skanks.......... oh wait, thats right, they are lesbians......... they want everyone to know, whether they give a shit or not, that they are a loving, caring lesbian couple....... how cute. Show me another one that has been together as long.

That you can look at two senior citizens who obviously loved each other strongly and come back with that comment is a reflection on you - SAD person.

[Sitarro]

That you can look at two senior citizens who obviously loved each other strongly and come back with that comment is a reflection on you - SAD person.

Find another pair that age. It's not even a challenge to find plenty of heterosexuals with that long of a relationship but show me one queer relationship that has lasted anywhere near as long....... you might as well be looking for a DoDo Bird.