LogicIsForSquares Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Civil unions for gay couples are perfectly acceptable to me. Vote on it. You don't have rights like that. A man and a woman is just what it is. It isn't a right. It is what it is. Gays should not ask for rights that are not truly rights of any kind. They need to keep their own perverted fetishes in the privacy of their own homes. Nobody needs or cares to see it. Hypocrisy. You have a huge crush on Trent Richardson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Hypocrisy. You have a huge crush on Trent Richardson. lold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Hypocrisy. You have a huge crush on Trent Richardson. Fuck, I almost forgot about that.. PoG went so far in the closet for TR, that he's found Narnia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Opal has the illuminati and PG has Trent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Opal has the illuminati and PG has Trent. And you have Cal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Civil unions for gay couples are perfectly acceptable to me. Vote on it. You don't have rights like that. A man and a woman is just what it is. It isn't a right. It is what it is. Gays should not ask for rights that are not truly rights of any kind. They need to keep their own perverted fetishes in the privacy of their own homes. Nobody needs or cares to see it. Seriously? I thought better of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Actually the rights Have always been equal. A gay could marry anyone of the opposite sex they wanted. Just like a normal person could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Actually the rights Have always been equal. A gay could marry anyone of the opposite sex they wanted. Just like a normal person could. I see. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Governmental marriage is simply a contract. it has nothing to do with love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Seriously? I thought better of you. wow, he thought better of you. That means ..... nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 I see. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others... CINTUCKI FAGGOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 Governmental marriage is simply a contract. it has nothing to do with love. I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you're living under some form of common law marriage, all legal marriages today are all contracts. That's what a marriage license is. That's why you have to go get one to be considered "married", irregardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. There is a reason why a wedding ceremony is called such; it is ceremonial, and not legally binding towards anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 22, 2016 Report Share Posted September 22, 2016 wow, he thought better of you. That means ..... nothing. Neither does much of your alcohol dt-induced babble either, but I guess the Constitution protects the right's of your dumb ass just as much as the next person. Which, funny enough, is what the rational side of the debate in this thread is about: protecting the rights and freedom's of others to do with their life what they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoeticG Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I mean "perverted fetish" in the utmost respect. I couldn't care less what anyone prefers to do with their sex life. To each his or her own. However, marriage in the biblical sense does not condone gay marriage, whether you agree or not. I believe in the Bible and in Jesus. There are just some things that are sacred and not to be tampered with. Just so you know, I'm not a person that hates gays. I just don't agree with them fighting for biblical gay marriage when what they are fighting for is totally blasphemous. I would prefer that everyone keeps their personal life... well, personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm pretty sure marriage way predates the bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 What are you even doing over here? This feels strange and disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 CINTUCKI FAGGOT! Easy there, Captain jaundice. I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you're living under some form of common law marriage, all legal marriages today are all contracts. That's what a marriage license is. That's why you have to go get one to be considered "married", irregardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. There is a reason why a wedding ceremony is called such; it is ceremonial, and not legally binding towards anything. We need to shift the topic of discussion to the use of this word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 We need to shift the topic of discussion to the use of this word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm married so I know full well what a marriage license constitutes. It was my point. The state never once asked if I was truly in love or gay when I got married. A faggot could get married just like anyone else, as long as they met the state requirements...just like anyone else. It was never an equal rights issue. Fags wanted special rights, to change what marriage is. Next time you want to be condescending try using real words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I'm married so I know full well what a marriage license constitutes. It was my point. The state never once asked if I was truly in love or gay when I got married. A faggot could get married just like anyone else, as long as they met the state requirements...just like anyone else. It was never an equal rights issue. Fags wanted special rights, to change what marriage is. Next time you want to be condescending try using real words.The fact that it took a Supreme Court ruling just a little over a year ago to give homosexuals the right to marry, whether legally or ceremonially, demonstrates the absurdity of your statement. But, even before that judgement, homosexuals didn't share the equal right to be married the same as homosexual couples, by any standard: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857 In fact, up until the Supreme Court ruling, there were still 13 states, including our great state of Ohio, that had homosexual marriage bans written into their state's constitution. Kind of makes it hard to have an equal right to marriage when it's outlawed by your state, isn't it? So, at the very least, your claim that "faggots" could get married like anyone else, and, more importantly, shared equal rights with heterosexual couples, is patently false. Have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I see. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others... "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Actually I think civil unions are a perfect compromise. Call it whatever you want have the ceremony wherever you like. Habits action by whichever religious organization you want or not if that's your choice. I don't see the problem. (Unfortunately it won't be long before somebody sues a church for refusing to perform the religious ceremony) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Yes, they did. They could get married. Being a fag wasn't a disqualification. No one stopped a fag from marrying according to the real definition of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Yes, they did. They could get married. Being a fag wasn't a disqualification. No one stopped a fag from marrying according to the real definition of marriage. At this point you're just responding because you love typing out 'fag' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 I apologize that you cannot grasp the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Let's say in 1995 some flaming queer wants to marry some old lady for convenience. At the courthouse he openly professed his faggotry to the clerk. The old lady has known he was a fudge packer for years but doesn't care. What do you suppose happened? Nothing. As long as both parties were willing to enter into a legal marriage there was nothing stopping them. That's why it was never about equal rights. It was about changing what marriage is and has been since the dawn of time. It wasn't the fact that fags were gay. It was they wanted to do something that's not even real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Easy there, Captain jaundice. We need to shift the topic of discussion to the use of this word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Let's say in 1995 some flaming queer wants to marry some old lady for convenience. At the courthouse he openly professed his faggotry to the clerk. The old lady has known he was a fudge packer for years but doesn't care. What do you suppose happened? Nothing. As long as both parties were willing to enter into a legal marriage there was nothing stopping them. That's why it was never about equal rights. It was about changing what marriage is and has been since the dawn of time. It wasn't the fact that fags were gay. It was they wanted to do something that's not even real. Are you just intentionally obtuse? Of course gay people wanted to be able to marry their partners. Being able to marry their partner is equality. How is that somehow more than being equal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Well dipshit because in the eyes of government it is simply a contract. Fags could enter the contract under the same terms as normal people. Government doesn't give a shit about touchy-feely emotions, nor should it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted September 23, 2016 Report Share Posted September 23, 2016 Well dipshit because in the eyes of government it is simply a contract. Fags could enter the contract under the same terms as normal people. Government doesn't give a shit about touchy-feely emotions, nor should it. ...Are you autistic or trolling ? Can't tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.