Gay marriage ruins it for the rest of us

[sear]

Quote Originally Posted by PP
are you so weak and wishy washy that you are willing to accept a gay union as the same thing as real marriage?.....

"Strength and confidence in your own is accepting it as equal. Weakness and insecurity doesn’t." d7

I appreciate your noble effort d7, though it's akin to trying to teach pigs to sing.

PP:
Are you on this Independence day so terrified by the prospect of actually applying the principle of Liberty that you would deny wholly acrimony to those foolish enough to seek it?

The United States of America was founded on principle.
Are you so bereft of principle that you're not even willing to abide by this elemental Founding principle?

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

So PP:
Your modus operandi is:
I want MY liberty, and
$#@! them !! ?

Perhaps this Independence Day is as good an opportunity as any for you to consider the most fundamental principle of human interaction:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12 (the Golden Rule)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Mason Michaels]

lol

Trying to rationalize voices from invisible, external entities bouncing around in your noggin? What are the aliens telling you?

The Holy Spirit tells me Jesus is LORD,the Passover Lamb of YHWH

 

[domer76]

I think that's what we're talking about, a State recognized 'Marriage', or as you defined it "Partners in a Personal Relationship".

That definition was taken from a search of “marriage definition”. You can remove “personal” if you’d like. An example would be Trump’s “marriage”. Nothing ‘personal’ about that.

 

[Jack]

Are they?

I believe so. When some Saudi Prince comes to visit with his 4 wives, each is recognized as a 'wife'. It's legal where the person came from, so is recognized here as being a lawful 'marriage'.

 

[domer76]

that"s where you are wrong. The Sovereign God of Creation did NOT create homosexuality. That is a lie straight from the pit of Hell.

Really? From the pit of Hell? Who delivered THAT message to you?

 

[domer76]

My marriage is still on a higher level than any fag marriage.

Than ANY one? Have you polled ALL of them?

 

[domer76]

If those that claim it's a private matter make it public, they're making it my business.

It's OK. You and your nigger boyfriend can get married.

Naw, you merely wish to make it your business so you can be pissed off as an excuse to publically display your bigoted ignorance.

 

[Jack]

For a entire bunch of legal reasons including tax and inheritance laws, insurance, visitation rights, life and death issues.

Yes. Government Goodies. NOT anything to do with 'raising children'. I understand why people want to get married today, there are lots of benefits involved. I think your definition for 'Marriage', "Partners" is a good one. It basically sums up the relationship.
And, if it's a 'Contract', you don't need to get a 'License' from the State, all you need to do is create the Contract and present it to the State informing them of the new 'status'.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Than ANY one? Have you polled ALL of them?

Certified
Fucking
Maniacal has no interest is seeking knowledge of any kind.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Yes. Government Goodies. NOT anything to do with 'raising children'. I understand why people want to get married today, there are lots of benefits involved. I think your definition for 'Marriage', "Partners" is a good one. It basically sums up the relationship.
And, if it's a 'Contract', you don't need to get a 'License' from the State, all you need to do is create the Contract and present it to the State informing them of the new 'status'.

That's all marriage in america is anyway; an economic contract.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

No modern science does NOT confirm there was a was a worldwide flood. Yes it was local and probably seemed like their whole world.. It was a four day flood of the Euphrates river basin and the barges broke loose in Shuruppak .. They were hauling grain, beer and livestock.

YES, science has confirmed there was a flood. such as the Bible mentions. You can try to deny it by saying well it happened some where else and was "borrowed". The Bible refers to a flood. So Noah and the Ark are based on a happening. You deniers try to use the Bibles words literally without admitting the world of 2000 years ago is vastly different than today's world.

 

[Sailor]

My marriage is still on a higher level than any fag marriage.

Your marriage involved kissing cousins, moonshine, a need to "keep it all in the family" and dueling banjos. Shaddafuckup.

 

[domer76]

Was there a flood or wasn't there? That is the argument not what Ballard did or didn't do! The facts are that the Bible records a great flood and modern science confirms there was a great flood. Did it cover the entire world of course not but 2000 years ago a persons world was only a few miles.

Looks like the great flood was mediocre at best.

 

[Jack]

That definition was taken from a search of “marriage definition”. You can remove “personal” if you’d like. An example would be Trump’s “marriage”. Nothing ‘personal’ about that.

"Partners in a Personal Relationship". Like I responded to Yaya, I think that is an excellent re-definition of 'Marriage' for today. It doesn't mention 'One Man, One Woman', it doesn't infer children, and it doesn't have a 'number' (like two). This simply refers to a group in a contractual relationship to garner Government Goodies. I can easily support this re-definition.

Yaya mentioned 'Civil Unions' as a greater way to get the Government out of 'Marriage'. All people need to do is register their 'Contract' (Partners in a Personal Relationship) at the local Civil Union Office. No need for 'Licenses' or 'Permits'.

 

[Jack]

That's all marriage in america is anyway; an economic contract.

Well, previously it was viewed as "Sex for Support", but I like the "Partners in a Personal Relationship" better. True equality. No more Husband as the designated 'Breadwinner', and Wife as the designated 'Homemaker'.

 

[Sailor]

I say balderdash to all of this. There is no reason at all a Gay couple cannot experience the same misery as any other married couple sometimes. Why the hell should they get to be treated special?????????????????????

 

[domer76]

The fags that expect their perverted choices to be recognized. You don't me going to the courts whining about getting married.

You don't have a marriage, boy. When I took your bitch from you like a play toy, that went away.

I haven’t seen one fag wailing or crying at the state of things here, Jethro. Just you.

You disn’t need to go to the courts, Sally. Your little world was already protected.

You took my bitch? When did that happen, Rufus?

 

[domer76]

Same one you'll get.

You don't have to believe it or accept it for it to be the case.

I understand your non-answer. Tough to face the real world, isn’t it? That’s why people like you concoct myths to make things better for you.

 

[domer76]

Bigot -*a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;*especially*:*one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

Sure, I'm a bigot, I'm fairly obstinate in my views. But have I called anyone names? Wouldn't that make you a...

Hypocrite - a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements



Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk

Why would me telling you that your churches, in all their bigoted glory, are safe from forced gay marriage make me a hypocrite?

 

[domer76]

Apparently he did until he was shown the door.

Nothing thin skinned about having standards and holding to those standards. I'd do the same to you for general purposes but wouldn't be as nice. Bet you don't have the guts to try.

lol

Funny little man. I’ve seen your “standards” on this forum.

You would, would you? Isn’t it fortunate for you that “shoulda/woulda/coulda” is merely concocted fecal material? Nothing more.