Obama Panders To The Gays!!!!

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#582 May 13, 2012
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do think the Government should be able to tell citizens when they are allowed to have civil liberty?
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be gay or lesbian? If not, they should have to same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.

Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#583 May 13, 2012
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do think the Government should be able to tell citizens when they are allowed to have civil liberty?
Btw, that is why Republicans and holier-than-thou people are up in arms ..... the President is saying everyone 'is equal' and must have equal rights.

Why does this bother you? That you cannot refuse civil rights to someone only because they have a different belief than you? That mentality kept rights from blacks for half our nation's history, kept rights from women for even longer, it kept interracial couples from marrying, and now is refusing rights to gays and lesbians.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#584 May 13, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
What they seem to be avoiding is, had it not been for the ra-e in this conversation piece, there would be no unborn child. I think what might teach some of these morons a lesson is, let their wives have this happen to them, or their daughters....then let a conservative tell their wife or daughter...you're stuck with what we tell you to do and you have NO choice. I will guarantee you attitude adjustment would be in order.
An enormous number of teens and women are raped each year. Too many. To be forced by law to have a rapist's baby is another rape taking place.
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#585 May 13, 2012
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be gay or lesbian? If not, they should have to same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.
Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be brother and sister? If not, they should have the same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.
Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.
Charlie

Harrison, AR

#586 May 13, 2012
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
That issue was decided in Roe versus Wade.
Baby killer

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#587 May 13, 2012
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be gay or lesbian? If not, they should have to same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.
Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.
They already have the same rights.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#588 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be brother and sister? If not, they should have the same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.
Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.
Willy, I think you're really stretching it aren't you to try to justify your position on gays having rights? The biggest reason obviously it wouldn't be in the best interest of a brother and sister to marry is BLOOD. As I stated before, it appears you haven't read up on King Tut? It's a well known fact, children from this type of relationship most likely will either wind up dead or retarded. Realistically, this could happen by accident more than any of us could imagine due to adoptions. As a matter of fact in recent months, a couple were engaged to be married when one became suspicious because their likenesses in more ways than one was just uncanny. So one did some checking and learned, they in fact were brother and sister. If brother and sister marriages were legalized, you'd be deciding the outcome of any children born into this and it's a completely different story result. Further, I don't know how many brothers and sisters you could muster up that would want to marry anyway, so your argument is a fruitless endeavor and of no real validity.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#589 May 13, 2012
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
An enormous number of teens and women are raped each year. Too many. To be forced by law to have a rapist's baby is another rape taking place.
That's right. You have to establish some boundaries. This, in a sense, would be like telling a husband he has NO right to decide whether his baby or his wife dies at childbirth. A husband has a serious, heart and conscience driven decision to make there and just think that in that situation, a decision would be forced on him? That gives me the chills the same as it does that conservatives feel THEY have the right to tell a woman who has been brutally rap-d by Lord knows who and how many, that she has NO choice in the matter. It is HER choice, HER conscience, HER heart...her decision. Not mine, theirs, yours or anyone else.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#590 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post makes no sense. Is it illegal to be brother and sister? If not, they should have the same rights as you do. Including the right to marry the person of their choice.
Are you hunting for justification to refuse to others the same rights you have? It appears you are.
That's a really bad argument. Even long ago when medical science was not near what it is today they saw inbreeding caused birth defects. It greatly increases resulting children being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. On the same subject, sexual relationships between a father or mother and their children are not permitted for that reason, along with other obvious reasons such as victimization.
pita skog

Ireland

#591 May 13, 2012
reality_review wrote:
<quoted text>
They already have the same rights.
please explain how they have the same right?

stating something doesn't make it necessarily true
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#592 May 13, 2012
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a really bad argument. Even long ago when medical science was not near what it is today they saw inbreeding caused birth defects. It greatly increases resulting children being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. On the same subject, sexual relationships between a father or mother and their children are not permitted for that reason, along with other obvious reasons such as victimization.
Perhaps you missed my previous posts on this subject. I've been using this scenario to show the absurdity of flatly stating that legal persons should have the right to marry whomever they wish. To put the genetic argument to rest, I've conceded that one or both of the siblings would need to be sterilized if they were not of the same gender. Do you have a practical (rather than moral) reason why such marriages should not be legal?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#593 May 13, 2012
Not all abortions involve "babies." Educated people realize that the abortion is complex and difficult, far over your head.
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>Baby killer
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#594 May 13, 2012
In my opinion, practical reason would be....it isn't practical. See how many you can round up that would be for it and then we'll discuss the practicality of it.
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#595 May 13, 2012
pita skog wrote:
<quoted text>please explain how they have the same right?
stating something doesn't make it necessarily true
reality_review has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex provided that several parameters such as age, kinship, present marital status, marriage license requirements, and so on are met. She does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. A flaming faggot and a bull dyke have exactly the same rights as reality_review.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#596 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed my previous posts on this subject. I've been using this scenario to show the absurdity of flatly stating that legal persons should have the right to marry whomever they wish. To put the genetic argument to rest, I've conceded that one or both of the siblings would need to be sterilized if they were not of the same gender. Do you have a practical (rather than moral) reason why such marriages should not be legal?
Why is it absurd to give gays and lesbians the legal right to marry. Would them marrying harm you or others in any way?

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#597 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
reality_review has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex provided that several parameters such as age, kinship, present marital status, marriage license requirements, and so on are met. She does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. A flaming faggot and a bull dyke have exactly the same rights as reality_review.
Why shouldn't she have that right if she wanted to? How would her marrying another woman harm you?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#598 May 13, 2012
pita skog wrote:
<quoted text>please explain how they have the same right?
stating something doesn't make it necessarily true
They have the same laws regarding who they can marry as we do.
You are always wanting "extra" for some, aren't you.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#599 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
reality_review has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex provided that several parameters such as age, kinship, present marital status, marriage license requirements, and so on are met. She does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. A flaming faggot and a bull dyke have exactly the same rights as reality_review.
That's a very incriminating and racy remark on your part and clearly now we can see how bigoted you are. Amazing what a small world some of you come from. You treat people other than what you expect them to be, as pure trash and that is not God's way. Whether you personally like it or not, they are entitled the same as you. Do they not have hearts and souls? I may be wrong, but I do believe that is God's interest. People like you who harbor so much hate for a different skin color, or what you really don't understand and aren't entitled to judge on, I suspect you won't get a front row seat later on for.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#600 May 13, 2012
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
reality_review has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex provided that several parameters such as age, kinship, present marital status, marriage license requirements, and so on are met. She does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. A flaming faggot and a bull dyke have exactly the same rights as reality_review.
Some people don't know the meaning of equal rights. I want affirmative action but I never get it because of my skin color.
WillyP

Louisville, KY

#601 May 13, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Willy, I think you're really stretching it aren't you to try to justify your position on gays having rights? The biggest reason obviously it wouldn't be in the best interest of a brother and sister to marry is BLOOD. As I stated before, it appears you haven't read up on King Tut? It's a well known fact, children from this type of relationship most likely will either wind up dead or retarded. Realistically, this could happen by accident more than any of us could imagine due to adoptions. As a matter of fact in recent months, a couple were engaged to be married when one became suspicious because their likenesses in more ways than one was just uncanny. So one did some checking and learned, they in fact were brother and sister. If brother and sister marriages were legalized, you'd be deciding the outcome of any children born into this and it's a completely different story result. Further, I don't know how many brothers and sisters you could muster up that would want to marry anyway, so your argument is a fruitless endeavor and of no real validity.
SpeakUp, I've already conceded that genetics are a valid reason why close relatives shouldn't procreate. But, marriage isn't for the purpose of producing offspring, as our gay friends are fond of saying. Lets suppose that the happy couple are sister and sister. Or, sterilized brother and sister. What is the practical argument for not allowing these marriages? I know the water-leaking lady on here argues that it will never happen. But, nothing's impossible, so humor me long enough to imagine that these two sisters are in love, but the prudish old state won't let them marry. Why not? If morality isn't reason to deny gay a marriage, is it a reason to deny any marriage?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

London Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ricky n Ashley 25 min Lol 33
dr hennah hashmi (Aug '16) 1 hr Victim 4
One Word Thread (Jul '10) 2 hr Razelies 2,555
add a word--drop a word (Apr '10) 2 hr So_da_lish_us 2,161
SENTURE hp fsd (Dec '11) 2 hr Dezz360 15
Game: Start A Sentence With The Last Word (Jan '13) 2 hr winner 904
New Restaurant coming to downtown London (Jun '15) 2 hr Welcome Committee 7

London Jobs

Personal Finance

London Mortgages