Why gays want to marry

[Mighty1]

So according to you Thud  people should marry who they want right? What if they "love" their mother? or father? brother? sister?

Hell I love my son so does that mean I get to corn hole him?

Is that OK by you or is that having "stone-age morals"?

The problem with some of you liberal types is that you have NO morals at all.

You want the state to say who consenting adults can an can't marry.

No I don't want the state to do anything but retards like you make it so they have to.

The courts are not taking anything away from them they are just making sure they don't get something that doesn't belong to them in the first place.

[Thud]

Originally posted by txmx
I believe that like being babtised being married is something done by the church.
And the church does not condone homosexuals.

You can believe what you want but the fact remains that a marriage is performed and validated by a civil servant, not some agitator in a dress who happens to have a bunch of thoughtless morons shaping their lives and minds after his ridiculous dribble.

Moreover, the church does not condone the use of condoms either.. How do you think your 'god' will look upon the millions of deaths caused by that criminal idiocy in his name?

For those who do not belive in God and his rules you will never understand this.
But at some point the day will come when we all will have to answer for our actions here on earth.

Are you ready?
I know I'm not.

If there, not a chance in hell but nevertheless, is a 'god' you are indeed not ready, since I'm convinced that a would-be god as most religions envison would never approve of retards dicriminating and looking down upon others among his 'sheep' in his name while merely satisfying their primal urge to place themselves above others in the moral hierarchy.
Better change that 'little' glitch before your day comes, sinner...


BTW, you believe the afterlife is something akin to a BBS shadow account?

.

[Thud]

Originally posted by Mighty1
So according to you Thud  people should marry who they want right? What if they "love" their mother? or father? brother? sister?

Hell I love my son so does that mean I get to corn hole him?

Is that OK by you or is that having "stone-age morals"?

The problem with some of you liberal types is that you have NO morals at all.

Very well, I'll go long in your flawed logic. The suggestions you formulated so eloquently above present a health risk if allowed. Allowing people related to a certain degree to acquire an administrative marriage does essentially condone by law the possibility of reproduction from similar genetic make-ups. That is what draws the line whom you can marry, not some loonatic's stone-age morals spread from the pulpit.

[cpxxx]

I never had an really strong views on gay marriage. I just vaguely wondered why they wanted to bother.  But it seems like anyone else they want validation in their lives. It has to be tough to be gay and judging by the prejudice shown here by so called Christians I can see why.  

 As it happens I spent last new year's eve at a party in the house of a lesbian couple. Not a 'gay' party, just friends who it happens were all straight. I considered my attitude to the whole gay thing and I realized that at some point I stopped seeing the gay thing and simply thought of them as a couple.  We didn't discuss their sexuality any more than I discuss mine with my friends.

At the end of the day gay people are just that, people. It's a pity others don't take the same view.  

I really don't know why so many religious people are intolerant bigots on numerous subjects including being gay. I mean just what right do you have to pass judgement on other people's lives? That, as the bible no doubt points out somewhere is God's job not yours

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by SOB
Thrawn, I know it's late, but why are you arguing at this particular idiot?  I say at, because he's incapable of putting together a coherent argument.  Let him be, and remember - it's not nice to pick on the handicapped.

Because he's bring up some arguements that others have.  And what a great foil to show how rediculous those arguments are.

[Mighty1]

Very well, I'll go long in your flawed logic. The suggestions you formulated so eloquently above present a health risk if allowed.

So aids is not a health risk? Isn't the risk of getting aids higher in gays?

Allowing people related to a certain degree to acquire an administrative marriage does essentially condone by law the possibility of reproduction from similar genetic make-ups.That is what draws the line whom you can marry, not some loonatic's stone-age morals spread from the pulpit.

By your logic then I should still be able to marry my son but not my daughter. Or I could marry my brother because we can't have kids.

Looks like your line needs a little work. Maybe you should look at some of those "stone-age morals " you seem to dislike.

[txmx]

Originally posted by Thud
You can believe what you want but the fact remains that a marriage is performed and validated by a civil servant, not some agitator in a dress who happens to have a bunch of thoughtless morons shaping their lives and minds after his ridiculous dribble.

Moreover, the church does not condone the use of condoms either.. How do you think your 'god' will look upon the millions of deaths caused by that criminal idiocy in his name?

 

If there, not a chance in hell but nevertheless, is a 'god' you are indeed not ready, since I'm convinced that a would-be god as most religions envison would never approve of retards dicriminating and looking down upon others among his 'sheep' in his name while merely satisfying their primal urge to place themselves above others in the moral hierarchy.
Better change that 'little' glitch before your day comes, sinner...


BTW, you believe the afterlife is something akin to a BBS shadow account?

.

If I where you I would start stocking up un some really strong sunblock LOL.
The UV rays are pretty bad In hell I here.

[midnight Target]

Anyone who is this vehimently against one group of people having the right to live in peace and love with the mate of their choice is just a bigot. Pure and simple, no doubt about it. Embrace your bigottedness and let it shine for all the world to see.

Out.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Because he's bring up some arguements that others have.  And what a great foil to show how rediculous those arguments are.

You're right, that is pretty damning!

[Thud]

Originally posted by Mighty1
So aids is not a health risk? Isn't the risk of getting aids higher in gays?

In your social circle homosexuals are probably regarded as both the cause of and synonymous with AIDS, so I'm only moderately surprised someone like you made such a statement.

I'm convinced that the number of heterosual seropositives is far more numerous (All known US gays number far less than all infected straights in Africa alone) so statistically it's complete BS.

By your logic then I should still be able to marry my son but not my daughter. Or I could marry my brother because we can't have kids.

Looks like your line needs a little work. Maybe you should look at some of those "stone-age morals " you seem to dislike.

Hardly, you evidently missed the pivotal point of  (a.o.) this whole thread: Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because should have the same right to wed their partner, regardless his/her sex. Ergo, regarding this (and many more) issue(s) the sexes should be treated equally.
Therefore your brother and son shouldn't be allowed to marry you, since we've already established that your sister and daughter can't because of the gene pool thing...
Or perhaps you'd like some sex based discrimination added to your conto as well? Would match your stone-age morals otoh...

.