United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... er-to-headline-a_n_673313.html
Published: Aug 6, 2010
Author: Nick Wing
Post Date: 2010-08-06 18:42:53 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 158606
Comments: 275
Ann Coulter To Headline 'Homocon' Event For Gay Conservatives Conservative pundit and unlikely gay ally Ann Coulter is set to headline the first annual Homocon, "a party to celebrate gay conservatives" put on by GOProud, the "only national organization representing gay conservatives." The festivities are scheduled to take place in New York City on September 25. "The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the 'no fun police' on the left," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. "I can't think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland' - Ann Coulter." "I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence," Baron pledged, making light of an incident earlier this year where gay soldiers protesting the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy chained themselves to the gates of the White House. In choosing Coulter, the organizers of GOProud appear willing to ignore her past transgressions against the gay community. The conservative pundit was condemned by gay-rights groups in 2007 when she notoriously called then-Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." And earlier this year, Coulter railed against "irritating lesbian" Constance McMillen for challenging the sanctimony of heterosexual-only proms. But Coulter's selection probably won't be surprising to many gay rights groups who have pointed out that GOProud sometimes exhibits self-destructive behavior. Earlier this year, the gay conservative group planned a fundraiser with Doug Manchester, a California businessman and hotelier who donated $125,000 to anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. That fundraiser was held earlier this month in an event that GOProud called an effort by Manchester to "make financial amends with the gay community," which had mounted a boycott of Manchester's hotels and accused him of treating his gay employees poorly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
If they could get Lindsey Graham to come too they could crown them the King and Queen of Homocon, although I don't know which would be which.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Are you a candidate, skippy?
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
Apparently, once again you're wrong.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
No I am right as usual. Just like some faggots pretending to be married. You can stomp your feet and have some faggot judge say your married. But two men can't marry. Conservatives can't be faggots. Maybe pretending to be conservative.
LOL! Are you a queer afraid to come out of the closet skippy boy? You sure have a problem with ALL women on the right don't you boy? Come on faggot! let your freak flag fly! It's the 21 st century NOBODY cares.
Quoted by PDS insane assholes every where.
No Stone, you're wrong, as always, unless you want to prove the entire article is a lie. Have at it.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Maybe there are some freaks meeting. But they aren't conservatives. You can't be a conservative and a faggot. Impossible. Now you can be a republican and a faggot. Example Lindsey Graham.
It's funny Stone, but even the freaks at Free Republic disagree with you.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Who besides a faggot like you, skippy, even gives a shit?
I am smarter then the freepers. Oh and Megan McCain isn't a conservative. She isn't even a real republican.
I disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's definition of conservative. Mike Church (a libertarian leaning, constitutional scholar/talker on Sirius/XM) had a lesbian call in to his show the other day. She was an older woman from Texas - who basically said in her drawl "I've been this way all my life". She went on to say she lived a very quiet life with her "partner". She had nothing but scorn for those homosexuals who march in parades and "get in your face" with their homosexuality. She claimed to be a conservative - and in fact sounded very much like one. Personally, I don't like homosexuality. But as someone who leans libertarian myself, I don't see where it's my business to make life any more difficult for someone like the lady in Texas. Put simply - live and let live. If she ain't gonna bother me, I won't bother her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
WRONG! There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper. Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I know you are a fundie,but you CAN'T be so ignorant as to think that marriage is tied to religion. You can marry in a civil ceremony with no representative of any religious cult in attendance. I will grant you that the state has no right and lacks the power to demand that any religion be forced to conduct a wedding ceremony for homosexuals or anyone else they don't like. Freedom is a two-way street.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Nor is it any business of the state.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Sure you are....(chuckle)
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
The irony is...um...overwhelming...
Marriage is a man and a woman. Period. The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words. May all faggots that claim to be married get aids.
Queers already possess the freedom to be with whomever they want, and freedom to make a commitment to whomever they want. They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat.
No they don't, but then they and queers have already hijacked the words: gay affirmative vibrant community (off the top of my head)
There is no such thing as a politically conservative bible thumper. Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want. Wrong. You've just described a libertarian. There are social constraints that have always be "conservative" which is defined by the lack of change or a status quo within a social standing. Stone happens to be right with respect to "oxymorons." A few of the primary tenets of political "conservatism" within the context of American politics are "pro-life, "pro-marriage" (between man & woman), and "pro-gun." Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US.
If a queer is pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage, he actually could be considered conservative. Are there any around? I'm sure, but just not many.
That's what makes them freaks.
She had nothing but scorn for those homosexuals who march in parades and "get in your face" with their homosexuality. She claimed to be a conservative - and in fact sounded very much like one. This is an example of the exception to the rule where there can actually be "conservative" homosexuals.
WHERE is the definition of the word marriage given as a joining of men and women exclusively? What government does NOT have the right to do is tell individuals who they can or can not marry. That is about as personal a choice as anyone will ever make in their entire lives,and of no legitimate concern of the government. This IS the conservative opinion. You seem to have religious dogma confused with government authority. We do NOT live in a theocracy,and with any luck at all we never will. May all faggots that claim to be married get aids. Besides being a truly sick thing to say,it is also a distinctly non-Christian thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Queers already possess the freedom to be with whomever they want,and freedom to make a commitment to whomever they want. No,they don't. They don't have the freedom to marry whoever they want. We are either all free,or none of us are free. A government that has the power to tell you who you can't marry also has the power to tell you who you MUST marry.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Wrong. You've just described a libertarian. Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government. Individual queers may have conservative leanings, but as a demographic they are as liberal/fascist as any group in the US. Gee,I wonder why? It's not like anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Why are you missing this? "Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever. They and you apparently want the "freedom" to arbitrarily redefine both the language and humankind's traditions. Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it? Or monogamy?
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT? YES - being a conservative DOES mean "holding to the traditional values and thought of a people who established out gubmint" - THE FOUNDERS. Minimal gubmint. Representative gubmint and consent by and for the People. But that's all now apparently a past "tradition." Anybody that CLAIMS to be a conservative is making them [queers] feel unwelcome by wanting government to treat them like second class citizens,or wishing they would die. Who are you kidding? Queers now have "special rights." Affirmative action. Corrupt judges. Look at them wrong and you can be arrested for "Hate Crimes." Man, you are waaay off base on this issue.
lol, you'd still be there kissing ass and looking for friends if they didn't get tired of your bullshit and ever increasing kookiness.
Were you ever in the music or song writing business? ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol
They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat... More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders. Of course the government has already changed the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat. Historically, marriage was a contract between two families, usually under the auspices of a religious authority. At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us. As is the case with everything government touches, it has destroyed the institution of marriage. 50% of Americans between 25 to 29 are unmarried. Almost 40 percent of children are born to unmarried parents. The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.
As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.
How does she enter into this discussion?
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
That's your definition and you are welcome to it. The question is, do you have the right to impose your definition on the rest of humanity? May all faggots that claim to be married get aids. Stuff like that gives Christians a bad name.
Absolute bullshit. You are displaying exactly the kind of warped logic that has allowed the government to grow into the Leviathan behemoth that it is today. Legally, marriage is a contract. The government has one role in contracts -- that of the arbitrator of last resort in a contractual dispute. In many cases, the government doesn't even perform this role anymore. When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration. The government certainly has no legitimate power whatsoever to bestow any special "rights" or "benefits" to married people. The government's only legitimate role in society is to protect the natural rights that all humans have as a result of being human.
How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification. If human beings were always rational and fair, there would be no need for the courts to get involved. A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state. Her partner's family did decide that she could keep the entire mortgage on the house since more was owed than it is now worth - everything else however, the family decided belonged to them.
You made a new contract and it was blessed by the court. If a dispute arises, the court will enforce the contract, or bless its modification. Which is what I said -- their only role is the arbitrator of last resort. A benefit of marriage is the right to inherit. A friend recently discovered what a mess that can be when the union is not blessed by the state. ROTFLMAO. People inherited long before there was a central state "blessing" marriages. Of course, people can inherit from unmarried individuals too. Even within state's "blessing" (you crack me up), the government has screwed this up as well. A Will is public instrument that is published when you die and can be challenged by any schmuck with a shyster lawyer. Did you know that? Most people don't understand this. The only way to make your death and inheritance a private affair is by creating a trust (I know this because I've done it at the advice of my attorney). The normal way that people handle their estate, with a Will, enables the government to leave them open for all kinds of trouble in the courts. Nothing that you've said is a legitimate argument for government control and licensing of marriage. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Not entirely true. I have seen and heard references to a "marriage" of a engine and transmission in a car or truck that didn't come with that engine or transmission. I have also never seen where the term is LEGALLY limited to a partnership between a man and woman ONLY. WHERE is it restricted to only male and female relationships,other than in the minds of fundies? They and you apparently want the "freedom" to arbitrarily redefine both the language and humankind's traditions. I have no interest in redefining anything. It is people like YOU that want to redefine it to meet your religious beliefs. Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it? Dogs get married. I read of one case where a man married his horse. In neither case does your religious cult have to recognize the marriages. Or monogamy? What does monogamy have to do with it? The subject was marriage,and WELL over 50% of the marriages in this country are not monogamous. Some were never intended to be monogamous from the beginning,and in others at least one partner is stepping out on the other.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them. There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles? Queers now have "special rights." Affirmative action. Corrupt judges. Look at them wrong and you can be arrested for "Hate Crimes." Yeah,all because people like you are singling them out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens. Man, you are waaay off base on this issue. No,I'm not. All I am doing is saying ALL citizens should be treated equally by the government,and their rights and freedoms as individuals need to be respected. What's wrong with that?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Of course, what you are saying is simply not true. A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth century, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support. Gay marriages were recognized in ancient Rome until 342AD. At least two Roman Emperors were in gay marriages, including Nero. Ancient Greece allowed day marriage too. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side. I don't give a hoot about your views on this, but let's be historically accurate, shall we?
Fuck you terriblemom.
If true it is good they were wiped out.
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up. It's apparent even it's most publically fervent adherents don't take it's teaching to heart, so why should others? You and that liberator as the prime examples.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Finally some good news on this site.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
People destroying our culture are the enemy. They will be made fun of, called names, ridiculed and put in their low place.
Heh..when the last king is strangled with the entrails from the last priest (or preacher) and all that. lol
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Typical of your way of thinking that culture is also monolithic. So far it has evolved to the point where you can call people vile names and make false accusations without being shunned or lynched.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Where is that happening? In your dreams? Christianity is the largest religion in the world and it's once again growing faster than the second largest religion (Islam). Conservatively, there are at least 2.5 billion Christians in the world. Islam has less than half that number. There are about 38,000 different Christian sects in the world. The Catholic Church is the largest, with over 1.2 billion adherents. However, various Pentecostal denominations as a whole are by far the fastest growing and together account for at least 500 million people, with some estimates claiming upwards of 1 billion. Most Pentecostals are in the third world, where their brand of Christian beliefs mix easily with tribal religious practices. There are also about 400 million other protestants,285 million Orthodox (210 million Eastern Orthodox and and 75 million Oriental Orthodox), and other assorted sects. Christianity is also the fastest growing religion in China, Vietnam and most other former communist countries. So, where are these Christian churches going belly up?
And most of them think every sect but theirs is wrong.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
So what's your point?
My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
They all agree that Jesus was the son of god who died to pay for our sins. After that, they agree on little else. So what?
Her partner of 16 years was young and dropped dead of a heart attack. Foolishly they had neither a will nor a trust.
The body of evidence supporting your claim to be a Christian is shrinking by the minute.
FWIW, I never believed it.
Just more estimates and statistics most supplied by the religious orgs themselves. Just go into any church on any given Sat or Sun and see for yourself. And I see you conveniently excluded Buddhists, since you only included the three Judaism branches, like no other religions exist on earth.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
A church I'd attended in the past sent me an email asking if I'd attend a series of meetings about how to "redirect" the church to encourage more traffic. I should go and thank them, because when I first started going I was a full believer, but the more I listened and learned the more doubt I had that this was anything but a mass hallucination. There's something about being surrounded by people, every single one claiming that they're "saved", that hits the pride button to much for me. Add in the criticizing of all other denominations as being "misled", and you're talking about a ship of fools here.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
I do wander into my wife's large Catholic Church on occasion and it's always packed. ditto for my sister's different Catholic Church in and my other sister's even larger non-denominational church. There are Christian denominations that are losing members (the Methodists come to mind) but they are losing members to other Christians churches. Yes, there are Catholic churches that have closed, but this is largely due to a lack of priests. Catholics are actually growing in the U.S. due to immigration from Latin America. Buddhists don't have anywhere near the membership of Christianity, Islam, or even Hinduism worldwide. Buddhists are growing quickly in the U.S., but still have only 1.5 million members or so. Not significant compared to the 225 million Christians in the U.S.
Why do catholics pray to mary? Why did they change the 10 commandmanets? Why to they call the pope "holy father".
It's funny, because I didn't grow up with a religious background at all and I only attend church today on very rare occasions, but I'm probably more a "believer" than you are. There is more scientific evidence for Christian beliefs all of the time. The big bang, which is proven science, is 100% compatible with the Genesis account of the creation: "And god said let their be light". There's also a lot of evidence coming from quantum physics (quantum entanglement) that the universe is a big hologram. Other evidence that's its a computer program, perhaps a computer program that uses holographic memory. There was a great show on the Shroud of Turin on the History Channel last month that was conducted by computer scientists that was very compelling. I've been in computer field for 23 years and I don't fall for simple number games like the "Bible Code" crap from a few years ago. What they've discovered about how the Shroud could have been made (by a narrow beam of moving light, e.g. a copy machine) is very compelling given that there weren't any copy machines prior to a few decades ago. Again, I don't care what people believe. But I do like to be historically and scientifically accurate, which is why I get pulled into these religious discussions on occasion.
There are certainly enlightened Christian theologians, those who don't claim the bible is 100% error free and understand that the bible is not a literal history. Unfortunately, there are none anywhere near me. If a church requires it's members to subscribe to an inerrant bible, as mine did, when the bible is riddled with errors and contradictions, it's bye-bye to that church.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Let's be very clear on history. The short answer is that the Catholics didn't "change" the 10 commandments. The Commandments are not numbered in the Bible. If you were to number every "command" in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 we would have about 17 commandments or more. So different efforts have been made to number and group them over the centuries. Two of the major players in the early Unified Church were Augustine and Origen. Augustine is considered a Saint and a doctor of the Church. Origen is considered in high regard on many accounts, although several of his positions have been rejected, such as his idea that souls in hell could eventually get back to heaven (which is unscriptural). Catholics and Lutherans generally prefer the commandments set out by Augustine (around 400AD) and the Eastern Churches and Protestants follow the Commandments set out by Origen (around 200AD). There were many disagreements between the Eastern Church (Orthodox) and Western Church (Catholic) while the New Testament was being assembled in the 4th century. The Eastern and Western Churches split in 1054. Protestantism didn't come along until for another 500 years. The first Protestant Church (the Lutherans) use the Augustine 10 commandments, just like the Catholics.
The church's in my area are packed too. Especially since they are packing two or three different congregations from different denominations into the same building (at different times of course) now because the individual congregations aren't large enough to support their own separate churches. Some even have Mexican denominations using their facilities for services during the week. Yet you still can drive by on Sundays and see very few cars in the parking lot.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
*whistle* Go get the bone, Boner!!
They just don't have the right (or social consensus) to redefine the language and the act of "marriage" by dictatorial fiat... More importantly, there weren't any government marriage licenses at the time of the founders. True dat. Gubmint seems to feel that have the right to intrusion by dictatorial fiat for any reason. At the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19th century, state governments starting to nullify common law marriages and began to exert more control over marriage. By the 1920s, 38 states had laws prohibiting whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. Interesting.... In the 1960s, governments started using their power over marriage to force "no- fault" divorce laws on all of us. That was an arrangement facilitated for business reasons (lawyers got rich), and social re-engineering reasons (NWO Commie/Blueblood Elites.) The end result has contributed to the destruction of the family. The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married. *Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman*
Some people who owns pets can communicate with them. Don't you agree?
So do many Native San Franciscan gay tribes.
I'll post something about this someday.
Not entirely true. I have seen and heard references to a "marriage" of a engine and transmission in a car or truck that didn't come with that engine or transmission. Heh...A Ford 5.0 engine with the tranny of a '75 Chevy Nova. What were they thinkin'?? I have also never seen where the term is LEGALLY limited to a partnership between a man and woman ONLY. WHERE is it restricted to only male and female relationships,other than in the minds of fundies? It's always been so obvious that man + woman = legal, it's expressed. "Fundie" authorization has nothing to do with historical sanity in this case; It's natural. Dogs get married. I read of one case where a man married his horse. In neither case does your religious cult have to recognize the marriages. Or monogamy? One bizarro-world case here and there is irrelevant. Only in yours and Rosie O'Donnell's cartoon world is she and another dyke, and Dick and Big Richard actually considered "married." What does monogamy have to do with it? The subject was marriage,and WELL over 50% of the marriages in this country are not monogamous. Some were never intended to be monogamous from the beginning,and in others at least one partner is stepping out on the other. That was my bad; I meant polygamy. What's to stop everyone from "marrying" everyone else - including their own two grandmothers?
That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government. Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state. It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative.
Sneaky may be a product of that coupling, a horse's ass!
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
Probably because nobody ever tried it. Mostly because the superstitious fundies that controlled local governments would have murdered them. I think it's because they were too ugly and practiced bad hygiene back then. Washington had wooden teeth - giving a different meaning to "woodies" - NOT attractive to obvious deist (but not atheist) gays, Jefferson and Adams. Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right? There were also laws against blacks and whites marrying. Do you think THOSE laws were based on Constitutional principles? Obviously not. [White] people like you are singling them [blacks] out for special treatment and denying them their rights as citizens. *LMAO* Yeah, I've been the one forcing them to drink from the 'Colt 45 - BLACKS ONLY' fountain. All I am doing is saying ALL citizens should be treated equally by the government,and their rights and freedoms as individuals need to be respected. Gays already have the "rights" and "freedom" to be with whomever they want (providing they're not Priests) till the day they die and call it whatever they want. The rest of us oppose a law demanding that we consider it "marriage."
This is so simple: "Marriage" = Man + Woman. Now if you don't the government deciding on its new definition, then WTH is the government involved NOW?? Same sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years. Leftists have always sought to replace the authority of the family, church, business, and chartable institutions with the power of the state. Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state. Yes, I hear ya. t's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative. Did it ever occur to you that you're missing something here?
He and Pete and libertarians want government to stay out of the lives of people, yet they support the government infringing on the legal definition of "marriage." A consensus opposes IT. The subversion of the English language and definitions is a real problem. We even have Mexican madres dropping bambinos out of their wombs in Arizona - and SUDDENLY the kid and Mommy and daddy are "Americans"?? Bullsh*t.
Of course, what you are saying is simply not true. A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth century, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support. Gay marriages were recognized in ancient Rome until 342AD. At least two Roman Emperors were in gay marriages, including Nero. Ancient Greece allowed day marriage too. Aristotle praised a same sex couple (Philolaus and Dioclese) who lived their whole lives together and maintained a household together until their deaths when they were buried side by side. I don't give a hoot about your views on this, but let's be historically accurate, shall we? HUH?? As historical "evidence of gay marriage" you present the respective cases of WHOM?? A couple of Bostonian freaky lezbos from the 1800s, a few B.C. Gay Greek Philosophers (big surprise there), and faggy Roman Emperors? Gimme a frickin' break. Statistically speaking - in 99.99% of ALL cases - the history of mankind has defined "marriage" as between a MAN & WOMAN.
Awww....had somebody abused you with a hard-cover King James Bible when you were a little rug-rat? Put some ice on it.
A.) The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and B.) You're wrong: A Boston marriage, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was an arrangement in which two women lived together, independent of any man's support. Some women did not marry because men feared educated women during the 19th century and did not wish to have them as wives. Other women did not marry because they felt they had a better connection to women than to men. Some of these women ended up living together in a same-sex household, finding this arrangement both practical and preferable to a heterosexual marriage. Of necessity, such women were generally financially independent of men, due either to family inheritance or to their own career earnings. Women who decided to be in these relationships were usually feminists, and were often involved in social betterment and cultural causes. with shared values often forming a strong foundation for their lives together
That isn't true. It is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999percent
A. NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female. B. (not bragging, but) I'm Right. If women wound up together, it was NOT "marriage." Sheeesh....
LOL...But what about that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001??
Funny that you of all people would mention "belly-up."
In the name of "freedom." (eyeball roll)
Then let nature deal with it, not the government. Nature has a great punishment for homosexuality -- your gene pool dies because you can't have kids. Why is this any of your business or the government's? It's not.
People weren't that stupid back then. It was called common sense. They knew what the second amendment meant too.
Leaving you with whom to guide your secular humanist atheistic Commie-Fascist society? Chyeah, you'll be a valued member of that society.
Which the government has destroyed with its control over marriage, education, and just about everything else in our lives.
It's not. Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
In your pro faggot view. Does an employer have to offer benefits go faqgots who claim to be married (they never will be), if the offer benefits to normal people? Since when is it the govts job to change the definition of words for the mentally ill?
Would you like to shun Stone? Or would you rather he be lynched? You don't seem all that tolerant of his free speech OR respect his views. You've devolved into a drunken slug (hiccup.)
You're the one who doesn't GET IT because your head is stuck so far up the government's ass that you haven't had a breath of fresh air in your entire life. The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives. That's called FREEDOM, which you know nothing about.
You're the one who doesn't GET IT because your head is stuck so far up the government's ass that you haven't had a breath of fresh air in your entire life. The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.
Where is that happening? In your dreams? Forgive her. She's possessed by the spirit of Ebenezer Beelzebub.
If you rephrase your legitimate question without the hateful language I will answer it. Otherwise, there's no point.
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right? ONE single GAY Judge stepped in and negated millions of those legal votes. Do you know this?
Your point is where it's always been - at the top of your sharp, pointy head
But people are supposed to believe you're a political "Independent"?
ONE single GAY Judge stepped in and negated millions of those legal votes. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson We don't live in a Democracy, we live a Republic where people have inalienable rights to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is not up to the government, congressmen, governors, presidents, judges, the voters, or anyone else except the people who want to marry, their families, and their church. That's the bottom line. To me you are a socialist who wants the government to control everything, no different than Obama or Barney Frank.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null. In 1963 California's prop 14 allowing housing discrimination based on race, religion, gender, marital status, age was struck down by the SCOTUS because it violated equal rights and protections as set out in the US Constitution.
Why is it you fundies are so interested in marrying your daughters,sisters,mothers,and grannies? It has never occurred to the rest of us that anybody would even want to,yet you must or you wouldn't be trying to push for laws to put people in jail for doing it.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
AMEN! It's so funny to me to hear so-called "conservatives" argue that the state should be able to usurp the power of people, families, and churches. Quite frankly, the primary problem with this country is the almost none of the people who call themselves "conservative" are actually conservative. Yup. It almost seems like somebody keeps moving the goalposts further and further to the left,doesn't it?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yukie,yukie,yukie. Shouldn't you be changing the irritable puppy's diaper,or something? Maybe fitting your livestock with strapless heels and fishnet stockings?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BullBush! What government doesn't have is the authority to determine WHO gets married.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No,I don't. I do know a lot of them played that game in public because they grew up in a system where admitting you were a non-believer could get all your property seized and yourself thrown into prison,though. Gays already have the "rights" and "freedom" to be with whomever they want (providing they're not Priests) till the day they die and call it whatever they want. Yeah,they can call it whatever they want,but without a marriage certificate one partner can be denied inheritance in some cases,or access to the hospital room where their mate lays dying. The rest of us oppose a law demanding that we consider it "marriage." BullBush! What you are demanding is un-Constitutional laws remain in place that denies a segment of our population the same basic RIGHTS that the rest of us have,all because of your religious superstitions. You are no different than the Muslims that want to install Sharia law.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
He and Pete and libertarians want government to stay out of the lives of people, yet they support the government infringing on the legal definition of "marriage." That alleged "logic" is so bizarre I don't even know how to address it. It's like you are posting from Superman's "Bizarro World",where yes means no and up is down. THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE,YOU CRETIN! You want to establish one to suit your cult beliefs and force them on others. A consensus opposes IT. Now you are going to claim majority rule like in a democracy? You are a bigger hypocrite than Goober Gore. The one thing you ain't is a conservative. You are a religious statist,and should identify yourself as one from now on.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Just come out and admit you are a flaming faggot. You like Barneys frank.
Figures don't lie,but liars figure.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
According to who,The Reverend Ted Haggard,spiritual adviser to the Bush White House,and client of drug dealers and homo escort services?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Hey dumbass. Words have meanings. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Assuming they both consent. Two men cannot be married any more then 2 plus 2 equalling 354.
Really? You sent nature a letter asking about this,and she said that in her reply? Any more "facts" you would like to provide? I sometimes wonder what it is that pisses you people off so much about this. It it because you thought you had no choice but to marry a woman when you got married,and now you are pissed because the young people of today might get a choice? Is it the,"DAMN! I CUDDA HAD A V8!" syndrome at work?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
(eyeball roll) Good point! In your ideal world we will all have all the freedom the biggest religious cult (thank you for admitting you are for democracy. Your grandchildren will be Muslims if you get your wish!) in charge of the government decides we need. Who could ask for more than that?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
If fags can marry. Then normal people can exercise their first amendment right to kill them. Can't make no law respecting religion..... or prohibiting free exercise. Read leviticus it says kill the fags. You fag lovers go down this path someday the 1st amendment will be interpreted that way and it will be open season.
I could give a shit what people on the internet ***think*** of me.
That you could have all the guns the government says you could have?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No so you can exercise your first amemdment right to kill faggots. You want to play word games with the constitution. Then I can too.
NOBODY is more of a Commie-Fascist than a Bible Thumper! Hell,prison isn't a good enough punishment for wrongdoers according to you people. You worship a Big Ranger in the Sky that promises to torture wrongdoers forever and ever,and it gives you wood.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Never mind HIS view. This is the view the Catholic Church agreed to in San Francisco. If you don't like it,you need to talk to Liberator about this because he thinks the biggest cult gets to rule,and there are more Catholics in this country than any other cult at the present time. Of course,with his love of theocracy,that will change when the Muslims take over. Majority rule,and all dat.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Of course, that's not true, unless maybe if you live in Ohio, Rhodes Island or New Jersey. All other states have prohibitions against sexual relationships by first cousins or closer relatives. Some states even have laws prohibiting non-blood relations including with step- parents, step-siblings, and in-laws. Again, I'm just keeping the conversation accurate.
Fair enough.
Ruh,ROH! You have done it now! His head may explode at the outrage of it all.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean? Just go ahead and say "We don't need no stinking Constitution! We got mob rule!" Have you applied for a job with the new Office of Reich Security yet? You seem to be a natural for the Thought Crimes Division.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
100 percent correct! I am waiting for the day when the Civil Wrongs Act of 1964 is given the boot,and we once again live in a free country!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
More importantly, private companies and specifically technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, and even stodgy old IBM were the ones who got the ball rolling on spousal benefits for gay employees. Why did they do it? They were facing a shortage of qualified people in the late 90s and they thought they could attract educated gays to come work for them. Apple took a lot of political heat for this in places like Texas, where they had sales offices. They stuck to their guns and did it anyway. AFTER the tech companies led on this, you started to see city and then state governments mandating it. I am NOT for the government mandates. The private companies took the lead out of their own self-interest. Capitalism. What a concept.
I would rather admit you are a fucking Nazi because you don't want all citizens to have the same rights. Also,I am not a queer.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Is that what you horses asses do for entertainment, sneaky? Aren't you a little old for dress-up?
I'm not the dumbass. I understand perfectly that we have freedom of and FROM religion in this country,and we have a Constitution that demands all citizens have the same rights. You seem to have trouble understanding these basic truths.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
And you call ME a dumb ass? Read leviticus it says kill the fags. You are so freaking ignorant you think we live under the Old Testament instead of the Constitution? Tell me,what is the real difference between you and the Taliban? BTW,Jesus said "Love your fellow man!",so I guess if you had been there to hear him say it you would be screaming to "string the SOB up!".
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You want to play word games with the constitution. Then I can too. Fine. Just point out to me where it says you can legally murder someone. People like you and Liberator are prime modern day examples of why the Founding Fathers insisted we have freedom of (and FROM) religion. Thank you for reminding people of the reasons.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
One thing that has always struct me as being odd is that many evangelicals seem to do a much better job at quoting from the punitive god of the Old Testament than the redemptive god of the New Testament. This makes no sense to me.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots.
They are one in the same.
Note that I don't condone killing faggots. I'm just making a theoretical argument that it is in fact lawful under our constitution.
Yes, but there was a different message prior to Jesus (you have to be perfect) than there was after Jesus (you can be forgiven you imperfections). Too many evangelicals focus on the former when they should be focused on the latter. To me, evangelicals are more like Old Testament Jews than Christians. That's what I don't get.
I think God was always forgiving. What would have happened if Adam and eve had told the truth. Would God have forgiven them. Or even better. What about when Abraham was counted as righteous for his faith.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. There goes your right.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. There goes your right. Say I'm one of those pick and choose people. I only read the OT. THere you go legal killing of faggots. And remember Lucy I am just having a theoretical argument. That you could in fact make a case for the legal killing of faggots. That is not what I am about or would want. I'm just trying to argue like war does. And others that play word games.
They do that because "putting the fear of GAWD" into their sheeple is where the money is. You have to make people feel both guilty and fearful to make them virtual slaves and get them to open their wallets wide. Make sense now?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots. You think that is in the US Constitution? Really? Or is it that you think we live in a police state Christian theocracy? Will you welcome living in a Muslim police state theocracy in 50 years or so when they are a majority?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You are out of your fucking mind.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Stone and his ilk are leading the charge of the new Talibangelical party.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
He does get to testy about consenting adults, yes? My opinion is that if you don't like what two people do with their relationships or behind closed doors, pay it no mind. I have gay and transgendered friends. If what they do in their relationships have no bearing on me, I ignore minor details like who they sleep with, marry, or why.
I don't know about that,but I would be willing to bet they are the main reason there aren't more conservatives voting Republican. Too many people equate devoutly religious people with conservatism,and nothing could be further from the truth.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Seems like a simple solution,doesn't it? I guess some people just ain't happy unless they have something to be mad about.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
-- Police State in Rainbow Gathering The busybody's consternation reminds me of how people freely associating and assembling peaceably and having done and excellent job keeping things safe and peaceful in the woods every summer are blighted with these Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) who label them 'national incidents,' harassing the snot out of folks as if something horrible is happening. What I see in this video is typical of how these guys are; burning tax dollars taking videos, writing tickets for being in the woods, ignoring the good job Rainbow Hippies do at rehabilitating and caring for the site of these gatherings. Friends of mine just got back lst week after extensive rehab work, and they told the sad story how bad these fascist control freaks screw with people over nothing. Everyone nowadays has to scream, bitch, twist arms and screw with people if they don't do things exactly like they want them too. In this case, the right to peaceably and freely assemble is moot, and people are harassed for leaving urban concentration camps which many cities these days remind me of. People from the top on down to the most rank of the rank and file need to readjust their priorities and get their unwarranted snout out of business that has no bearing on them. In the case of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and other people; they have been around as long as there have been people, and the world has not ended, nor would end if people would grow up, and mind their own business.
That's no way to build a law enforcement or political empire! First you have to convince the voters and taxpayers that they are in danger from a specific group of "outsiders",and then you have to come down hard on the "outsiders",busting heads and finding them guilty of various "crimes" to show the taxpayers and voters that you are doing your damnedest to protect them to get them solidly in your corner. Once you do that you can ask for more money and more power to "do more to protect them better". Nobody ever made any money or any careers from leaving people alone. Unless it was from actual criminals paying bribes to authorities to be left alone,that is.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
HA! You and Pete want to live in a dictatorship where lone GAY judges overturn Issue & Referendums and consensus of the People - as in California when millions voted REJECT "Gay Marriage"? Curious... Btw, queers presently are afforded EVERY RIGHT to f*** themselves up the ass silly in the pursuit of "happiness" and gaiety any which way they want. Is anyone stopping them or you two from doing so? A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson Chyeah - MUCH better to have ONE JUDGE take away the rights of millions, you twit.
Really? First amendment. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. That would be practicing religion.
Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA? Since when??
I don't care what people do either Ferret. They will answer to God for it. But when they try to redefine meaning of words it is time to stop the queers.
No, that would be you Queer-enabling, marry-anything-that-frickin-moves dictatorial brownshirt tyrant-wannabes. It has never occurred to the rest of us that anybody would even want to,yet you must or you wouldn't be trying to push for laws to put people in jail for doing it. It has still not yet occurred to you that "Gay Marriage" is a figment of yours and Meguro's imagination. Any "law" being shoved down our throats (pun intended) that the majority of us reject such absurdity is facilitated by you and your tyrannical ilk. Admit it; You're wearing a black robe while posting, Judge Pete.
You two oughta look in a full length mirror.
No,I don't. I do know a lot of them played that game in public because they grew up in a system where admitting you were a non-believer could get all your property seized and yourself thrown into prison,though. Yes, they were. The Founders WERE overwhelmingly Deists and Christians. Deal with it - your history-revisionism notwithstanding.
Tell me the constittuional argument where I am wrong. It clearly says NO PROHIBITION OF FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Make the constitutional case or you lose.
"Religious superstition"? Man, now I know you're lost your mind. "Marriage" is a legal social designation and partnership between MALE & FEMALE that's been recognized by all sane civilizations for eons. ONCE MORE - You and queers already have EVERY basic "right" to sodomize, screw, bend-over, cook for, yell at, and live with anyone you please. You can even tell people you're "married." The rest of us just don't have take it seriously. Sorry.
BWAAAHAAA!
Not much of a "definition of marriage" - it's simple, really. Man + Woman = MARRIAGE. Consider this post a receipt for your memo. Btw, you're welcome.
MUCH better than having millions of retards take away the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens. For one thing,it is much easier to appeal a law decided by one judge in court,and have it overturned if it is un-Constitutional. You can't take mobs to court. Which of course makes you happy because you are for mob rule. Admit it,you are a big-government Dim at heart.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Why can only women go into the womens restroom. Someone should file an equal protection lawsuit. It's a bunch of bullshit men can't go into the womens restroom. Also why can't men be girl scout leaders. Equal protection violation. It's also bullshit that playboy wont publish my picture in its magazine. Equal protection you know. It is also bullshit that Mrs America is always a woman. Do you approve of that discrimination? Bigot I have a friend who is really good at basketball. He wants to play on the womens olympic team but the assholes wont let him. You think he should file and equal protection lawsuit? I mean he can make the team. Why are they discriminating against him? Again why can't my son go into the womens restroom. He likes looking you know. What you don't support those just fags redefining and ruining our culture. You like Obama aren't a cultural American.
Really? First amendment. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. That would be practicing religion. On what planet does that mean the Old Testament is a part of the US Constitution?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Feds have no constitutional authroity in this matter fudge packer. 10th says it is the states right and their supreme court decided. You fag supporters put your dick over the constitution.
That's about the extent of equation... The fascist nutcases will be claiming "human rights violations" when they can't "marry" an entire village or pig farm. But don't worry - they'll find ONE tyrannical judge who makes it legal.
On what planet does that mean the Old Testament is a part of the US Constitution? The part where it says the govt can't prevent my free exercise of religion. Leviticus says kill the fags. So if you try to prohibit you are violating my first amendment right.
Yes,if it is found to violate the Bill of Rights. Or maybe you think it should be ok for the people where Anal Roberts has his University in Oklahoma to pass a local law allowing non-believers to be stoned to death? Or the denizens of Harlem and Oakland pass a ordinance making white people slaves?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
BTW,I guess it is ok with you for places like Chicago,NYC,and DC to ban guns,too? After all the majority of the people who live in those places want them banned.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You're projecting. YOUR queer "mob" just took this case to court. YOUR lone judge ruled for YOUR MOB. Case closed. Admit it,you are a big-government Dim at heart. The people who support your opinion on this dictatorial tyranny are your ilk - the Dems. Look around.
No, that would be you Queer-enabling, marry-anything-that-frickin-moves dictatorial brownshirt tyrant-wannabes. Wrong once again,Buckwheat! *I* ain't the one that is worried about that because it has never once occurred to me that sane people would even want to do that sort of thing. Yet you and others like you worry about it night and day. Almost like you want the government to protect you from yourselves. Any "law" being shoved down our throats (pun intended) that the majority of us reject such absurdity is facilitated by you and your tyrannical ilk. I never realized you were such a big fan of mob rule. Banning guns,smoking in the privacy of your home,etc,etc,etc should make you absolutely orgasmic because they are all supported by a majority of people in various areas of the country.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Sez the statist that is moving the goal posts.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
And which fundie preacher was it that told you this?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
It is spelled "says" You're welcome.
Also why can't men be girl scout leaders. Equal protection violation. It's also bullshit that playboy wont publish my picture in its magazine. Equal protection you know. It is also bullshit that Mrs America is always a woman. Do you approve of that discrimination? Bigot I have a friend who is really good at basketball. He wants to play on the womens olympic team but the assholes wont let him. You think he should file and equal protection lawsuit? I mean he can make the team. Why are they discriminating against him? Great examples... But you're not going to pierce the thick skulls of the mentally incapacitated liberals who insist on the "right" to continue their social engineering clusterf***ing society and civilization.
Yes,superstition. PROVE to me that your version of God exists,and that he is the CMMF in charge of all the various Gods,or shut up about it.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Lemme know when you've regained your sanity, ok? Until then, good luck with that "Gay Marriage" thingy.
What next? Are you going to tell me the sun rises in the west?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You're one of the good guys liberator. Pete you're not. You're only right about 60 percent of the time. So you're just ok. And wrong on this important issue. There has never been gay marriage in America. Why is that such a bad thing?
Thanks... You're right, I'm right, and we know it. You can't convince the insane that they're not.
It's not fair the sun always rises in the East. Maybe the govt should change what is east and west, north and south. wha wha wha
Notice how he pussed out on answering my questions. He's stumped.
ROFLMAO! You guys are funny. It is also obvious you don't get out much and don't do much thinking. For example,it IS legal for men and women to use the same rest rooms. Even at the same time. All that has to be done is to have a Uni-Sex sign put on the door. As for your laughable basketball and similar claims,now you self-proclaimed "conservatives" are against a business owner making his own decisions on who to hire and who to not hire? I can't wait to see you bozos on a picket line demanding the NBA hire dwarfs.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
OUCH...:-D
Only if they're gay fundies.
For example,it IS legal for men and women to use the same rest rooms. Even at the same time. All that has to be done is to have a Uni-Sex sign put on the door. As for your laughable basketball and similar claims,now you self-proclaimed "conservatives" are against a business owner making his own decisions on who to hire and who to not hire? I can't wait to see you bozos on a picket line demanding the NBA hire dwarfs. You're hysterical sneakypete. Next thing you're going to be saying fags can get married. Oh wait you already said that.
And wrong on this important issue. Yeah,you are right. After all,who needs any stinking freedom of choice,anyhow? If the government wants us to get married,they can damn well tell us who to marry,right? There has never been gay marriage in America. Well,the whole idea of marriage has never made ME feel very gay. In fact,it scares the hell out of me. Come to think about it,I know damn few married people that seem all that gay to me. I don't think that is what you are talking about,though. I think you are talking about homosexuals getting married,and you are even wrong about that. Just recently hundreds of homosexual couples got married in a mass marriage ceremony in California. Why is that such a bad thing? Because you and the others who push this are DEMANDING the government have the power to tell us who we can and who we can't marry. If there is a more personal individual decision choice than who to marry,I don't know what it would be. Yet you want to take this personal decision away from individual citizens and put it in the hands of the government bureaucracy.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Then they need to get rid of those male and female only signs. It's discrimination.
No they didn't.
Pete there is no discrimination. Marriage has a meaning. It means a man and a woman. Just because faggots want to be accepted (they never will by the majority). They are pushing this insanity. They are insane.
You can't convince the insane that they're not. Can't wait to see you two "conservatives" come down on the side of the gun banners in Chicago,DC,NYC,and other cities because "the majority of the people there want guns banned.". Here is a suggestion for your picket signs: "Bill of Rights? We don't need no stinking Bill of Rights!"
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
That does fit right in with your stand on homosexual marriage. When are you going to start lobbying for it?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I know you are a rocket scientist and all,but has it ever occurred to you that we are not having a conversation in real time,and that it takes me time to read and type responses? Or that my phone may right,I may need to go to the bathroom,cook breakfast,or do any number of other things before I respond?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
OUCH...:-D DAYUM! Talk about dumb and dumber!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Only if they're gay fundies. OK,that makes as much sense as anything else you have posted. Maybe even more,given how many fundie homo's there are out there.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
It's NOT discrimination if both genders have facilities they can use. It would only be discrimination if there were only one rest room and it was restricted to one gender only. Then again,it's not surprising to see you take the position that government needs to make the decisions for the business owners.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yeah,they did.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Then again,it's not surprising to see you take the position that government needs to make the decisions for the business owners. Separate but equal was thrown out. Do you also support different restrooms for colored people?
Yeah,they did. Pete you can claim you are married to a man. But you're not. You can have an official govt stamp that says you are married to a man. But you are not.
Yes,it means two joining into one. It means a man and a woman. Only to superstitious religious loons. But I repeat myself.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Marriage is a man and a woman. Even if you fly the fag flag in your front yard. It isn't going to change.
There was a SC case about rest rooms? Really? Do you also support different restrooms for colored people? Yes,if that is what the owner of the business wants,and he or she puts in separate facilities for them to use. Then again,unlike you I believe the owner should be the one to make these decisions,not the government.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
In other words,in "Stone World" a marriage certificate isn't proof of a marriage? There are no civil marriages,and all marriages MUST occur only after hiring and paying a local Sky Pilot? The really scary part about all this to me is really do believe this nonsense to be true,and you still have the gall to call yourself a "conservative".
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You have a fag flag? What does it look like?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Whose rights did this judge take away? No ones.
Astounding that a point of view can be so obtuse yet remain upright...
C'mon! You know that gay marriage is just the first step. Activist judges are going to give homosexuals the right to walk into anybody's living room and force their children to watch them engage on gay sex acts.
What laws say that you can't use the woman's bathroom, lead a girl scout troop, pose for Playboy, compete in the Mrs America Pageant, or pay basketball in the NBA? What laws? There aren't any laws that say this. You've brilliantly articulated the problem with so-called "conservatives" -- today's "conservatives" are not conservative. You agree with the left that the edicts of the state should overrule the authority of the family, church, business, and property owners in general. This is NOT a conservative view. It's a neo-conservative view. Neo-conservatism was started by ex-Trotskyites and other assorted 1960s leftists. Even though some of their ends have changed, their means remain the same -- they want to use the power of government to force their views on others. Just like the left. Just like you and "Liberator".
Since when?? If the states or congress enact a law that conflicts with the US Constitution, the court has and can strike it down. Since the US Constitution became the supreme law of the land. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The founding fathers were just as opposed to mob rule as they were to monarchy.
Because they leave the seat up.
There are only two people I know who would brag about this... And they just happen to be the only two forum denizen who've ever posted photos posing in Spandex.
If the states or congress enact a law that conflicts with the US Constitution, the court has and can strike it down. Since the US Constitution became the supreme law of the land. You're repeating yourself, Lucy. Answer the questions please: 1) Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? 2) That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA? And since when??
Some day we may even brag about you Felatie...
What laws? There aren't any laws that say this. Wrong analogies. Affirmative Action, "Hate Laws," and "Gay" marriage are just a few examples of over-officious Federal overreach and violations of common sense and logic. A liberal-Left SCOTUS (which includes two lesbians) will guarantee far more tyranny.
I'll eschew the Spandex bike jumpsuit for a Spandex banana hammock. (No, my poster is NOT for sale.)
1) Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? No. I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution. Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade".
Which makes you at odds with the left and right. Me too.
You are a wise man Pete. Flawless reading of the power elite's political tea leaves. Thanks, and Airborne!
Citing a fact is no brag. That is your spin. As for spandex, I used to race bicycles and had more then one goober with a micro sized brain scream out their car window others and I they saw in bike togs must be 'faggots.' You wear the clothing that most suits the activity. So, Yuck Fou.
When people oppress others cruelly and wrongly, it's time to get them back in line. If one person wants to commit to a life with someone else as a partner, more power to them. I live in a state that had an evil group called the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA) that always tried to pass anti-gay ballot measures that generally went down in flames. So, I've had experience seeing others trying to steal someone else's social standing and sense of peace and well being to try to create a scapegoat to scare others to accept their religious or political agenda. You express the ethics of an oppressor and a thief, Stone. You can try to mitigate and minimize what you say, even try to put sugar on it; but your line of thought on this is still rank sewage.
I don't wear jumpsuits...everything is two piece... I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either.
Scalia and who else?
You don't have a package, do you dwarf?
No argument there,except for homosexual marriages not being any business of the government one way or the other,and your insistence on calling homosexuals "gay". There may be some gay ones,but the ones I have met and known don't seem to be all that happy to me.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Thanks,but it takes no special insights or abilities to see what has been going on. Ray Charles had to wear shades to keep it from hurting his eyes. Anybody that doesn't see it just ain't looking.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Well, I have nothing agaist gays and lesbians; none the less, that is very appreciated.
Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade". Perhaps you think its a suicide pact? Just sayin...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
If queer "marriage" isn't the business of government, than why isn't polygamy? Marriage with children (like Islam)? Marrying your aunt Tilly and uncle Joe at the same time? Hey - my "insistence on calling homos 'gay'" is not only a 1st Amendment right (lol - now you oppose THAT??), but homos are the ones who call themselves "gay." And no wonder they aren't "gay" (in a happy sense) - who would be getting poked with a pecker so much that they've got to wear Depends for the rest of their lives?
Ok - so you've just opined that "California Voters Be Damned" - and the process of I & R is a charade (but ONLY when the Left or Gays lose.) Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade". No, but you, US Presidents, and Congress DO.
He used to be...Until he was beamed down from your space ship.
I'm sorry - it's been a while since I've understood Clingon.
What specifically were those "anti-gay" measures? I've had experience seeing others trying to steal someone else's social standing ... Huh? What "social standing" is that? Mine is "citizen." Is there some special designation I'm missing?
(phew!) What a relief that you're only ensconced in a two-piece Spandex cocoon. I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either. I'll concede your point; There are rare exceptions.
It's not spandex and if you were any kind of an athlete you'd know that.
Perhaps you think its a suicide pact? ROFLMAO! Looks like Boyeye is one of those "living document" peep-pulls!
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
It's not. The Mormon Church really punked out on this one,and bowed to the political power of the mainstream Christian cults. Marriage with children (like Islam)? In some states today you can legally marry at age 13 with your parents permission. Marrying your aunt Tilly and uncle Joe at the same time? Because government has a legitimate interest in banning blood relation marriages to prevent the birth of idiots. For one thing,congress couldn't stand the competition. Hey - my "insistence on calling homos 'gay'" is not only a 1st Amendment right (lol - now you oppose THAT??) Nope. If you want to look like a PC fool getting ready to step out of the closet yourself,go ahead.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yes. Second Class Citizen. Someone with fewer rights than you.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.
In some states today you can legally marry at age 13 with your parents permission. In 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, in most states it was 10, while in Turkey it was 15.
Therefore, you can justify Muslim child-marriage because in Delaware in the year 1880 some crackpot decided it was alright? Geez, you ARE a champion moral relativist, aren't you LM? God help your daughter.
Spandex is not part of the uniformed activities of baseball, football, or Karate. Sorry, Vera Wang.
Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.
Baloney. Queers can even tell people they're "Married." (Except that militant gays and you demand "official" designation.) Btw, if you want me to refer to you as "General Sneakypete," I will. No charge.
Liberator is so very typical of a lot of people. He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination. My ex-mother-in-law was just like him. Insular, myopic, and stubborn to the point that no facts or evidence could make her see the light.
Just noting the reality that a culture's idea of what is moral does change. In the US women activists worked long and hard to raise the age of consent. I wonder which side of the debate you would have been on had you been around in 1880. Would you have defended the age of seven or 10 as being the traditional and thus moral age of consent?
Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?
He doesn't realize that he is a product of his culture and not of thought and choice.
How exactly was an obscure, odd 1880 Delaware marriage law considered a "traditional" moral age of consent in your mind? Your premise is the entire 4 quarts low in oil.
Says the poster calling for a ban of posters she disagrees with. Have you ANY idea that in MY country, there's a 1st Amendment?
Hypothetical is not actual. Have you ANY idea that in MY country, there's a 1st Amendment? You would defend your Constitutional rights and deny Constitutional rights to others - hypocrite!
Thanks for the courtesy ping... He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination. My ex-mother-in-law was just like him. Insular, myopic, and stubborn to the point that no facts or evidence could make her see the light. Cut the crap you pseudo-intellectual elite-wannabe. You're just another moral relativist bending over for the PC "Issue du jour" claiming he's anti-gubmit officiousness.
So sayeth the "hypothetical" anti-1st Amendment fascist.
Was that from your almanac of fiction and fact? Wilson Lustre Nylon Spandex Football Game Pants are deluxe adult football game pants.
You seem to have taken on the traits of your ex mother-in-law. Was she ignorant like you, also?
Attacking a kid...how special...
I don't wear footballl panties either. And as an ex rubgy and ex football player, football players ARE pussies.
Wilson Lustre Nylon Spandex Football Game Pants are deluxe adult football game pants. I haven't been playing too much "deluxe adult tackle football" in the 21st century or so... But nice try.
ROFL
You know - I really appreciate your humor - however intended...or unintended it is.
The "Mom" is the poster. Lucy is the kid, doof.
More should try to. I crack me up all the time. Fred is better at the subtle stuff than I am tho.
Stop it, dwarf! You are as effeminate as Obama!
I don't know sports, just fabrics.
Okay...there's a topper for sure...
Wrong as usual petey.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
It was still 7 in Delaware in the 1960's. Maybe even later than that.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yeah,and you can call yourself an intellectual,but that doesn't make you one.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident? He is as blind as a bat,and doesn't know any better. The good news for you is at the rate he is going you should be able to get him to register as a Dim.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
No,there's not. In YOUR country the Old Testament replaces the Bill of Rights.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Spandex is used in clothing for many sports like bicycling, gymnastics and many others. In bicycling, you can damage your knees by pedaling hard in cold weather, so you need to cover your knees without increasing wind resistance. You also have to shave legs to allow deep tissue message during a stage race's run to get out all lactic acid from muscle tissue, and to keep wounds clean should you fall and scrape the skin.Spandex is not part of the uniformed activities of baseball, football, or Karate. Sorry, Vera Wang. It's just a variety of fabric dude; you shouldn't get so excited by it.
Do you by chance mean Klingon? It's an invented language dude. I'm into Star rek, and I sure don't speak it or would bother learning it.
That same year, the Oregon Court of Appeals declared Measure 8 unconstitutional. As a result, the OCA's only statewide victory was nullified. THAT'S what you call "anti-gay" measures? Imagine that - "special right," along with considering "homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse."
WHO?? Lol, you and war are the ones vogueing in online photos in your Spandex suit, not me. In bicycling, you can damage your knees by pedaling hard in cold weather, so you need to cover your knees without increasing wind resistance. Can't you just wear knee pads over your garter and nylons instead?
Yes, with "K" - my bad.
I like the episode where Kirk and Spock go through that mirror to the past of a planet. It is cold and Spock gets horny. I also like the one with Spock playing the harp in a tree.
I'm a dude now in his fifties who still rides bicycles daily, but I don't have a 'My Space' page, sorry. Congrats though; I had to look up the current meaning of that word, voguing. I knew it meant to be in style and current, but I had not known it has morphed into a verb as 'Google' for example has. In Bicycling, the very high RPM that are part of riding bicycles so many miles per week that fast need to be protected below approx 35 degrees. Spandex gives warmth, and does not cause lots of wind resistance that is a big factor going at speed. Not many people know the basics of this sort of competition, so I'll cut you some slack. Just don't expect me to do so every day though, I have an image as a nasty, irrational liberal to uphold. ;-)
Special Rights is a buzz word that the OCA adopted after learning it was a catch phrase of the Civil Rights Movement. It is not special rights to give equal protection and contractual prerogatives under the law. As for your curious mixing of homosexuality, which like heterosexuality is a paradigm of life where you partner with whom you feel sexual attraction to with pedophilia which is a crime against minors who have not formed informed consent is disingenuous, and pointless as there is no guilt by association. As for S&M activities, please keep your bedroom predilections to yourself. You have a right to them, but those of us who don't engage in these things don't want to hear about them.
#2. To: Skip Intro (#1)
Queen of Homocon
#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot.
#5. To: Skip Intro (#4)
#6. To: Skip Intro (#1)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
No I am right as usual.
#8. To: Skip Intro (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: Skip Intro (#9)
Free Republic disagree with you.
#11. To: Skip Intro (#9)
#12. To: A K A Stone, Skip past go, go directly to jail, do not collect 200 (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot.
Same as the old jackass boss
#13. To: A K A Stone (#3)
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#5)
You can stomp your feet and have some faggot judge say your married. But two men can't marry.
#15. To: Ignore Amos (#12)
I don't see where it's my business to make life any more difficult for someone like the lady in Texas.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I am smarter then [sic] the freepers.
#17. To: Skip Intro (#0)
(Edited)
#18. To: sneakypete (#14)
#19. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#14)
Freedom is a two-way street.
#20. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#18)
The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words.
#21. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#13)
No such thing as a conservative faggot. That is like having a pro choice pro lifer. An oxymoron.
#22. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)
Conservatives can't be faggots. Maybe pretending to be conservative.
#23. To: Skip Intro, A K A Stone (#9)
It's funny Stone, but even the freaks at Free Republic disagree with you.
#24. To: Ignore Amos, A K A Stone (#12)
A lesbian call[ed] in to his show the other day. She was an older woman from Texas - who basically said in her drawl "I've been this way all my life". She went on to say she lived a very quiet life with her "partner".
#25. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Marriage is a man and a woman. Period. The govt doesn't have the power or right to change the meaning of words.
#26. To: Liberator (#19)
#27. To: Liberator (#21)
Being a conservative means that you are for individual freedoms and reducing government control over the private lives of individual citizens. That is 180 degrees off from what bible thumpers want.
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
They don't have the freedom to marry whoever they want.
#29. To: sneakypete (#27)
(Edited)
[A liberatarian] Which is what a conservative really is. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians,and being a conservative means holding to the traditional values and thoughts of the people who established our form of government.
#30. To: Liberator (#23)
That's what makes them freaks.
#31. To: Liberator (#29)
(Edited)
if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
The government has no business regulating who can get married. They certainly have no business requiring a license to validate that a couple is married.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#11)
Oh and Megan McCain isn't a conservative.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Marriage is a man and a woman.
#35. To: lucysmom (#32)
(Edited)
As long as there are certain rights, benefits, and protections that go along with marriage, the government does have an interest in who is married.
#36. To: Liberator (#28)
Because a bunch of nuts loves their dogs doesn't mean the state must recognize "marriage" it their case, does it?
#37. To: Liberator (#29)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#38. To: jwpegler (#35)
When I went through my divorce we used private arbitration. The government's only role was register the agreement about assets and children that came out of the private arbitration.
#39. To: lucysmom (#38)
#40. To: Liberator (#28)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#41. To: Liberator (#29)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#42. To: Liberator (#28)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever
#43. To: lucysmom (#34)
#44. To: lucysmom (#37)
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
Fuck you terriblemom.
#46. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up.
#47. To: mininggold (#45)
#48. To: Skip Intro (#46)
Finally some good news on this site.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#47)
People destroying our culture are the enemy. They will be made fun of, called names, ridiculed and put in their low place.
#50. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
There are about 38,000 different Christian sects in the world.
#52. To: Skip Intro (#51)
And most of them think every sect but theirs is wrong.
#53. To: jwpegler (#52)
So what's your point?
#54. To: Skip Intro (#53)
My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.
#55. To: jwpegler (#39)
Nothing that you've said is a legitimate argument for government control and licensing of marriage. In fact, just the opposite is true.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Fuck you terriblemom.
#57. To: lucysmom (#56)
#58. To: jwpegler (#50)
So, where are these Christian churches going belly up?
#59. To: mininggold (#58)
#60. To: mininggold (#58)
Just go into any church on any given Sat or Sun and see for yourself.
#61. To: jwpegler (#60)
#62. To: Skip Intro (#59)
when I first started going I was a full believer, but the more I listened and learned the more doubt I had that this was anything but a mass hallucination.
#63. To: jwpegler (#62)
Again, I don't care what people believe. But I do like to be historically and scientifically accurate, which is why I get pulled into these religious discussions on occasion.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#61)
(Edited)
Why did they change the 10 commandmanets?
#65. To: jwpegler (#60)
I do wander into my wife's large Catholic Church on occasion and it's always packed. ditto for my sister's different Catholic Church in and my other sister's even larger non-denominational church.
#66. To: Abu el Boner (#30)
#67. To: jwpegler (#31)
if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders...
#68. To: lucysmom (#36)
How would one prove that a dog has freely consented to marry?
#69. To: lucysmom (#37)
Many Native American tribes accepted same sex marriage.
#70. To: jwpegler (#64)
#71. To: sneakypete (#40)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#72. To: Liberator (#67)
Just as long as the arrangement is between a man and woman
#73. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#71)
I read of one case where a man married his horse.
#74. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry,
#75. To: sneakypete (#41)
And if you noticed, there we no homosexual "marriages" during the time of the Founders. WHY NOT?
#76. To: jwpegler (#72)
That's up to the people who want to marry, their families, and their religious institutions, not the government.
#77. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler, sneakypete (#74)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
#78. To: jwpegler, sneakypete (#42)
"Marriage" is the definition of an official partnership between a man and a woman. Has been forever.
#79. To: Skip Intro (#46)
#80. To: Liberator (#76)
ame sex marruage has NEVER been recognized in this Republic for over 200 years.
#81. To: Liberator (#78)
Statistically speaking - in 99.99% o
#82. To: jwpegler (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#84. To: mininggold (#45)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up.
#85. To: A K A Stone (#47)
People destroying our culture are the enemy.
#86. To: Liberator (#82)
(Edited)
NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female.
#87. To: jwpegler (#80)
The country largely never had marriage licenses until the 1920s so there was nothing "official" to recognize, and
#88. To: mininggold (#48)
Heh..when the last king is strangled with the entrails from the last priest (or preacher) and all that. lol
#89. To: A K A Stone (#87)
It was called common sense.
#90. To: jwpegler (#86)
Why is this any of your business or the government's?
#91. To: jwpegler (#89)
#92. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
Typical of your way of thinking that culture is also monolithic. So far it has evolved to the point where you can call people vile names and make false accusations without being shunned or lynched.
#93. To: Liberator (#90)
Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
#94. To: Liberator (#90)
Sticking "gay" in front of "marriage" requires Governmental redefinition, regulation, and licensing. GET THAT??
#95. To: jwpegler, mininggold (#50)
And you wonder why Christian churches are going belly up
#96. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#97. To: jwpegler (#94)
The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.
#98. To: Skip Intro (#53)
My point is that Christians agree on little except calling themselves Christians.
#99. To: war, AKA Stone (#57)
FWIW, I never believed it.
#100. To: Liberator (#97)
(Edited)
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?
#101. To: Liberator (#97)
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?
#102. To: Liberator (#71)
That was my bad; I meant polygamy. What's to stop everyone from "marrying" everyone else - including their own two grandmothers?
#103. To: jwpegler (#72)
Real conservatives have historically viewed the family, church, business, and charitable institutions as bulwarks against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.
#104. To: Ibluafartsky (#73)
Sneaky may be a product of that coupling, a horse's ass!
#105. To: A K A Stone (#74)
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Govt doesn't have the authority to change that.
#106. To: Liberator (#75)
Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right?
#107. To: Liberator (#77)
#108. To: sneakypete (#106)
#109. To: Liberator (#78)
Statistically speaking - in 99.99% of ALL cases - the history of mankind has defined "marriage" as between a MAN & WOMAN.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#81)
That isn't true. It is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999percent
#111. To: sneakypete (#105)
BullBush! What government doesn't have is the authority to determine WHO gets married.
#112. To: Liberator (#82)
A. NATURE "recognizes" marriage between male and female. !
#113. To: Liberator (#85)
In the name of "freedom."
#114. To: sneakypete (#112)
#115. To: Liberator (#99)
#116. To: A K A Stone (#87)
They knew what the second amendment meant too.
#117. To: sneakypete (#116)
#118. To: Liberator (#88)
Leaving you with whom to guide your secular humanist atheistic Commie-Fascist society?
#119. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler, liberator (#91)
In your pro faggot view. Does an employer have to offer benefits go faqgots who claim to be married (they never will be), if the offer benefits to normal people?
#120. To: A K A Stone (#111)
(Edited)
Any man can marry any woman and vice versa.
#121. To: jwpegler (#120)
#122. To: jwpegler, Liberator (#93)
The government doesn't have to to redefine anything. It just has to get out of the way and let people live their lives.
#123. To: Liberator (#97)
You ARE aware this very issue was already decided upon in California by its citizenry via Issue & Referendum, right?
#124. To: lucysmom (#101)
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null.!
#125. To: sneakypete (#119)
(Edited)
Never mind HIS view. This is the view the Catholic Church agreed to in San Francisco.
#126. To: A K A Stone (#108)
Just come out and admit you are a flaming faggot. You like Barneys frank.
#127. To: sneakypete (#104)
Maybe fitting your livestock with strapless heels and fishnet stockings?
#128. To: A K A Stone (#111)
Hey dumbass. Words have meanings. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Assuming they both consent.
#129. To: A K A Stone (#114)
If fags can marry. Then normal people can exercise their first amendment right to kill them.
#130. To: A K A Stone (#117)
No so you can exercise your first amemdment right to kill faggots.
#131. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone, Liberator (#129)
(Edited)
#132. To: sneakypete (#130)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
#133. To: jwpegler (#131)
#134. To: sneakypete (#130)
#135. To: A K A Stone (#133)
(Edited)
They are one in the same.
#136. To: jwpegler (#135)
#137. To: A K A Stone (#132)
There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots.
#138. To: lucysmom (#137)
There you go. An argument for legal killing of faggots.
#139. To: jwpegler (#131)
One thing that has always struct me as being odd is that many evangelicals seem to do a much better job at quoting from the punitive god of the Old Testament than the redemptive god of the New Testament. This makes no sense to me.
#140. To: A K A Stone (#132)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
#141. To: A K A Stone (#134)
Note that I don't condone killing faggots. I'm just making a theoretical argument that it is in fact lawful under our constitution.
#142. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#129)
Tell me,what is the real difference between you and the Taliban?
#143. To: sneakypete (#141)
"You are out of your fucking mind."
#144. To: Skip Intro (#142)
Stone and his ilk are leading the charge of the new Talibangelical party.
#145. To: Ferret Mike (#143)
My opinion is that if you don't like what two people do with their relationships or behind closed doors, pay it no mind.
#146. To: sneakypete (#145)
#147. To: Ferret Mike (#146)
People from the top on down to the most rank of the rank and file need to readjust their priorities and get their unwarranted snout out of business that has no bearing on them.
#148. To: jwpegler, sneakypete (#100)
We don't live in a Democracy, we live a Republic where people have inalienable rights to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
#149. To: sneakypete (#140)
You think that is in the US Constitution?
#150. To: lucysmom (#101)
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If 100% of Californians voted to pass a law that was in conflict with the Constitution, that law would be null.
#151. To: Ferret Mike (#143)
#152. To: sneakypete (#102)
Why is it you fundies are so interested in marrying your daughters,sisters,mothers,and grannies?
#153. To: sneakypete, jwpegler (#103)
It almost seems like somebody keeps moving the goalposts further and further to the left,doesn't it?
#154. To: sneakypete (#106)
Btw Pete - you DO know 98% of the Founders either believed in God or were Christians, right?
#155. To: Skip Intro (#142)
#156. To: sneakypete (#106)
What you are demanding is un-Constitutional laws remain in place that denies a segment of our population the same basic RIGHTS that the rest of us have,all because of your religious superstitions.
#157. To: sneakypete (#106)
You are no different than the Muslims that want to install Sharia law.
#158. To: sneakypete (#107)
THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE,YOU CRETIN! You want to establish one to suit your cult beliefs and force them on others.
#159. To: Liberator (#148)
Chyeah - MUCH better to have ONE JUDGE take away the rights of millions, you twit.
#160. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#157)
#161. To: A K A Stone (#149)
You think that is in the US Constitution?
#162. To: sneakypete (#159)
MUCH better than having millions of retards take away the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens. For one thing,it is much easier to appeal a law decided by one judge in court,and have it overturned if it is un-Constitutional.
#163. To: A K A Stone (#111)
Two men cannot be married any more then 2 plus 2 equalling 354.
#164. To: sneakypete (#161)
That would be practicing religion.
#165. To: Liberator (#150)
Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade?
#166. To: Liberator (#150)
Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade?
#167. To: sneakypete (#159)
You can't take mobs to court. Which of course makes you happy because you are for mob rule.
#168. To: Liberator (#152)
Why is it you fundies are so interested in marrying your daughters,sisters,mothers,and grannies?
#169. To: Liberator (#153)
You two oughta look in a full length mirror.
#170. To: Liberator (#154)
Yes, they were. The Founders WERE overwhelmingly Deists and Christians.
#171. To: sneakypete (#169)
Sez
#172. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#160)
Why can only women go into the womens restroom. Someone should file an equal protection lawsuit. It's a bunch of bullshit men can't go into the womens restroom.
#173. To: Liberator (#156)
"Religious superstition"? Man, now I know you're lost your mind.
#174. To: sneakypete (#165)
(Edited)
#175. To: Liberator (#158)
Not much of a "definition of marriage" - it's simple, really. Man + Woman = MARRIAGE. Consider this post a receipt for your memo.
#176. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#172)
#177. To: A K A Stone (#176)
#178. To: sneakypete (#175)
What next? Are you going to tell me the sun rises in the west?
#179. To: Liberator (#177)
#180. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#172)
Great examples...
#181. To: A K A Stone (#178)
It's not fair the sun always rises in the East. Maybe the govt should change what is east and west, north and south. wha wha wha
#182. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#180)
I can't wait to see you bozos on a picket line demanding the NBA hire dwarfs.
#183. To: sneakypete (#180)
ROFLMAO! You guys are funny. It is also obvious you don't get out much and don't do much thinking.
#184. To: A K A Stone (#176)
#185. To: sneakypete (#180)
For example,it IS legal for men and women to use the same rest rooms. Even at the same time. All that has to be done is to have a Uni-Sex sign put on the door.
#186. To: sneakypete (#184)
Just recently hundreds of homosexual couples got married in a mass marriage ceremony in California.
#187. To: sneakypeteinthecloset (#184)
#188. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#177)
You're right, I'm right, and we know it.
#189. To: A K A Stone (#178)
It's not fair the sun always rises in the East. Maybe the govt should change what is east and west, north and south. wha wha wha
#190. To: A K A Stone (#179)
Notice how he pussed out on answering my questions. He's stumped.
#191. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#181)
It's not fair the sun always rises in the East. Maybe the govt should change what is east and west, north and south. wha wha wha
#192. To: Liberator (#182)
I can't wait to see you bozos on a picket line demanding the NBA hire dwarfs.
#193. To: A K A Stone (#185)
Then they need to get rid of those male and female only signs. It's discrimination.
#194. To: A K A Stone (#186)
No they didn't.
#195. To: sneakypete (#193)
It's NOT discrimination if both genders have facilities they can use. It would only be discrimination if there were only one rest room and it was restricted to one gender only.
#196. To: sneakypete (#194)
No they didn't.
#197. To: A K A Stone (#187)
Marriage has a meaning.
#198. To: sneakypete (#197)
#199. To: A K A Stone (#195)
Separate but equal was thrown out.
#200. To: A K A Stone (#196)
You can have an official govt stamp that says you are married to a man. But you are not.
#201. To: A K A Stone (#198)
Even if you fly the fag flag in your front yard. It isn't going to change.
#202. To: Liberator (#148)
MUCH better to have ONE JUDGE take away the rights of millions, you twit.
#203. To: jwpegler (#202)
(Edited)
#204. To: jwpegler (#202)
Whose rights did this judge take away?
#205. To: A K A Stone (#160)
(Edited)
Why can only women go into the womens restroom. Someone should file an equal protection lawsuit. It's a bunch of bullshit men can't go into the womens restroom. Also why can't men be girl scout leaders. Equal protection violation. It's also bullshit that playboy wont publish my picture in its magazine. Equal protection you know. It is also bullshit that Mrs America is always a woman. Do you approve of that discrimination? Bigot I have a friend who is really good at basketball. He wants to play on the womens olympic team but the assholes wont let him. You think he should file and equal protection lawsuit? I mean he can make the team. Why are they discriminating against him?
#206. To: Liberator (#150)
Are you saying the citizens of California be damned - that any Issue & Referendum in ANY state is a charade? That "gay marriage" is the "Law of the Land" of the USA?
#207. To: A K A Stone (#160)
Why can only women go into the womens restroom. Someone should file an equal protection lawsuit. It's a bunch of bullshit men can't go into the womens restroom.
#208. To: Ferret Mike, war, all (#143)
I have gay and transgendered friends.
#209. To: lucysmom (#206)
#210. To: Liberator (#208)
#211. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#205)
What laws say that you can't use the woman's bathroom, lead a girl scout troop, pose for Playboy, compete in the Mrs America Pageant, or pay basketball in the NBA?
#212. To: war (#210)
Some day we may even brag about you Felatie...
#213. To: Liberator (#209)
You're repeating yourself, Lucy. Answer the questions please:
#214. To: lucysmom (#213)
I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#215. To: sneakypete (#147)
That's no way to build a law enforcement or political empire! First you have to convince the voters and taxpayers that they are in danger from a specific group of "outsiders",and then you have to come down hard on the "outsiders",busting heads and finding them guilty of various "crimes" to show the taxpayers and voters that you are doing your damnedest to protect them to get them solidly in your corner. Once you do that you can ask for more money and more power to "do more to protect them better".
#216. To: Liberator (#208)
"There are only two people I know who would brag about this... "
#217. To: A K A Stone (#151)
#218. To: Liberator (#212)
#219. To: Liberator (#211)
...which includes two lesbians...
#220. To: war, Liberator (#219)
Scalia and who else?
#221. To: Liberator (#211)
Affirmative Action, "Hate Laws," and "Gay" marriage are just a few examples of over-officious Federal overreach and violations of common sense and logic.
#222. To: Ferret Mike (#215)
You are a wise man Pete. Flawless reading of the power elite's political tea leaves.
#223. To: war (#218)
"I don't use homo erotic imagery in every point that I make either."
#224. To: lucysmom (#213)
No. I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#225. To: sneakypete (#221)
Homosexual marriages [aren't] any business of the government one way or the other,and your insistence on calling homosexuals "gay". There may be some gay ones,but the ones I have met and known don't seem to be all that happy to me.
#226. To: lucysmom (#213)
(Edited)
I'm saying that the voters in an individual state can't override the US Constitution.
#227. To: Ferret Mike, sneakypete (#215)
You are a wise man Pete.
#228. To: Ferret Mike (#216)
As for spandex, I used to race bicycles and had more then one goober with a micro sized brain scream out their car window others and I they saw in bike togs must be 'faggots.'
#229. To: Ferret Mike (#217)
I live in a state that had an evil group called the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA) that always tried to pass anti-gay ballot measures that generally went down in flames.
#230. To: war (#218)
I don't wear jumpsuits...everything is two piece...
#231. To: Liberator (#230)
What a relief that you're only ensconced in a two-piece Spandex cocoon.
#232. To: Badeye, lucysmom (#224)
Perhaps you think the US Constitution is a "charade".
#233. To: Liberator (#225)
If queer "marriage" isn't the business of government, than why isn't polygamy?
#234. To: Liberator (#229)
Huh? What "social standing" is that? Mine is "citizen." Is there some special designation I'm missing?
#235. To: Liberator (#226)
Ok - so you've just opined that "California Voters Be Damned" ...
#236. To: sneakypete, Liberator (#233)
Marriage with children (like Islam)?
#237. To: lucysmom (#236)
In 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, in most states it was 10, while in Turkey it was 15.
#238. To: war (#231)
It's not spandex and if you were any kind of an athlete you'd know that.
#239. To: lucysmom (#235)
Perhaps on day California voters will decide to ban posters calling themselves "Liberator" from the internet.
#240. To: sneakypete (#234)
(Edited)
Yes. Second Class Citizen. Someone with fewer rights than you.
#241. To: lucysmom (#236)
#242. To: Liberator (#237)
Geez, you ARE a champion moral relativist, aren't you LM?
#243. To: Liberator (#239)
Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.
#244. To: jwpegler (#241)
He believes that the world has always been the way he experiences it today and that any deviation from his narrow little corner of the world is an abomination.
#245. To: lucysmom (#242)
I wonder which side of the debate you would have been on had you been around in 1880. Would you have defended the age of seven or 10 as being the traditional and thus moral age of consent?
#246. To: lucysmom (#243)
Are you being intentionally ironic or was that an accident?
#247. To: Liberator (#246)
Says the poster calling for a ban of posters she disagrees with.
#248. To: jwpegler (#241)
Liberator is so very typical of a lot of people.
#249. To: Sybilsmom (#247)
You would defend your Constitutional rights and deny Constitutional rights to others - hypocrite!
#250. To: Liberator (#238)
Spandex is not part of the uniformed activities of baseball, football, or Karate. Sorry, Vera Wang.
#251. To: jwpegler (#241)
My ex-mother-in-law was just like him. Insular, myopic, and stubborn to the point that no facts or evidence could make her see the light.
#252. To: Liberator (#249)
(Edited)
Sybilsmom
#253. To: lucysmom (#250)
#254. To: lucysmom (#250)
Was that from your almanac of fiction and fact?
#255. To: war (#252)
#256. To: war (#253)
(Edited)
I don't wear footballl panties either. And as an ex rubgy and ex football player, football players ARE pussies.
#257. To: Liberator (#255)
#258. To: Liberator (#256)
(Edited)
I really appreciate your humor
#259. To: war (#253)
as an ex rubgy and ex football player
#260. To: war (#253)
I don't wear footballl panties either. And as an ex rubgy and ex football player, football players ARE pussies.
#261. To: lucysmom (#260)
#262. To: sneakypete (#232)
ROFLMAO! Looks like Boyeye is one of those "living document" peep-pulls!
#263. To: lucysmom (#236)
In 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7, in most states it was 10,
#264. To: Liberator (#240)
Baloney. Queers can even tell people they're "Married."
#265. To: lucysmom, Liberator (#243)
Tssk...Your fascist fangs are showing, Lucy.
#266. To: Liberator (#246)
Have you ANY idea that in MY country, there's a 1st Amendment?
#267. To: Liberator (#229)
What specifically were those "anti-gay" measures?
#268. To: Liberator (#238)
"Spandex is not part of the uniformed activities of baseball, football, or Karate. Sorry, Vera Wang."
#269. To: Liberator (#228)
"I'm sorry - it's been a while since I've understood Clingon."
#270. To: Ferret Mike (#267)
In 1992 the OCA returned to the issue of homosexuality, when it proposed Measure 9. This initiative would have amended the Oregon Constitution to prevent what the OCA called "special rights" for homosexuals and bisexuals, by adding a provision that the state "recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse." The ballot measure was defeated, 56 percent to 44 percent.
#271. To: Ferret Mike, war (#268)
It's [Spandex] just a variety of fabric dude; you shouldn't get so excited by it.
#272. To: Ferret Mike (#269)
Do you by chance mean Klingon? It's an invented language dude.
#273. To: Ferret Mike (#269)
#274. To: Liberator (#271)
"Lol, you and war are the ones vogueing in online photos in your Spandex suit, not me."
#275. To: Liberator (#270)
"Imagine that - "special right," along with considering "homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]