Who

Maysville, GA

#16804 Jun 29, 2013
Multiple polls link::

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

And many of the poll respondents probably dont even understand the questions and dont know who their elected reps are.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#16805 Jun 29, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me axe u a ?.
When did you decide you are gay?
Let me axe u another ?.
If you are not gay, why do you huff up and show support for gays?
You very ever ever or seldom if never, post any opinions here, why now?
Don't be ashamed if you are gay, the supremes now say you can get married. You are free to come out of the closet.
But most important of all, I will not change my mind about gays.
You dont like what I say, just skip over it.
Didn't say I am or am not gay. Doesn't matter. Gays have little or no impact on me. What someone does in their own bedroom is none of my concern or urs.

U made the point that being gay is a choice, yet u can't say when u chose not to be gay.

u made a foolish post, u were called on it and u failed.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#16806 Jun 29, 2013
billy bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious, in what way does gay marriage actually affect YOU?
Do you really think that all heterosexual married couples have the same idea of what marriage is, or is not?
You do realize that marriage is on the decline in this country and has been for a long time, you do know that, don't you??
Or are you just trying to force your views on others again? Its a free country, right? Or is it only a free country when it matches with what you think?
Now tell the truth, or just baffle me with more BS.
I am not claiming recognizing same sex marriage has any impact on me and even if it did, it would be irrelevant. The important impact is on society. In most civilized societies, marriage, for thousands of years, has been understood as the legal union of one man and one woman. It served to stabilize society and protect children. Now the US has decided to fundamentally redefine what constitutes marriage. Okay, where does it stop? Polygamists are already looking at this as their opening, and why shouldn't they. If marriage can be defined as both one man and one woman, and as two women and as two men - why not one man and two women?
What would be a valid argument against it, now that we have begun redefining marriage, what is the rationale to stop? And why not one woman and two men? Well, what about the children - which man is on the birth certificate? Would paternity tests be required at birth? Those are just two reasonable scenarios that could be argued for now.
Once marriage can be seen as fluid, doesn't it naturally follow that its significance must be diminished? We already have a huge segment of our population having children out of wedlock and we have seen the results - greater probability of growing up in poverty, greater chance of being abused, greater chance of not finishing high school, much less college, greater chance of ending up in jail.
Society has a vested interest in children being raised in a stable home, anything that further diminishes the odds of that, I consider a tragedy. In my opinion, the redefinition of marriage does that. That is my priority - the sanctity of marriage. What Jim and Bob do in the privacy of their home does not impact me, if they want some formal recognition of their relationship - fine, I understand that desire and can respect it - find some alternative term and have our legislatures recognize it - but don't call it marriage, because it isn't.
Don't expect you to agree and I've said my piece.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16807 Jun 29, 2013
This is the final kiss of death for Rubio's so called Republican career. I don't remember, but wasn't Rubio a Tea Party favorite? I could be wrong. Doesn't matter now anyway does it?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#16808 Jun 29, 2013
If it were legal I would take bets that there will be no or very little border security when this immigration bill passes. I wonder if they have any bets on this in Vegas?

ww.wnd.com/2013/06/loopholes-mean-amnesty-bef...
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#16809 Jun 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not claiming recognizing same sex marriage has any impact on me and even if it did, it would be irrelevant. The important impact is on society. In most civilized societies, marriage, for thousands of years, has been understood as the legal union of one man and one woman. It served to stabilize society and protect children. Now the US has decided to fundamentally redefine what constitutes marriage. Okay, where does it stop? Polygamists are already looking at this as their opening, and why shouldn't they. If marriage can be defined as both one man and one woman, and as two women and as two men - why not one man and two women?
What would be a valid argument against it, now that we have begun redefining marriage, what is the rationale to stop? And why not one woman and two men? Well, what about the children - which man is on the birth certificate? Would paternity tests be required at birth? Those are just two reasonable scenarios that could be argued for now.
Once marriage can be seen as fluid, doesn't it naturally follow that its significance must be diminished? We already have a huge segment of our population having children out of wedlock and we have seen the results - greater probability of growing up in poverty, greater chance of being abused, greater chance of not finishing high school, much less college, greater chance of ending up in jail.
Society has a vested interest in children being raised in a stable home, anything that further diminishes the odds of that, I consider a tragedy. In my opinion, the redefinition of marriage does that. That is my priority - the sanctity of marriage. What Jim and Bob do in the privacy of their home does not impact me, if they want some formal recognition of their relationship - fine, I understand that desire and can respect it - find some alternative term and have our legislatures recognize it - but don't call it marriage, because it isn't.
Don't expect you to agree and I've said my piece.
Awesome post. A++++
Who

Maysville, GA

#16810 Jun 29, 2013
bored monitor wrote:
<quoted text>
U made the point that being gay is a choice, yet u can't say when u chose not to be gay.
u made a foolish post, u were called on it and u failed.
This is what I posted dimwit....
"Reason being, there is scientific proof to say one way or the other of what makes a person homosexual. There is much speculation with biased opinions to say it's by choice, or it's a natural inclination."
Now using your sorry reasoning, anyone could say that I said it was a natural inclination, like Oh my claims.
I didn't say either one, I said "much speculation, with biased opinions, to say it could be EITHER choice or natural.
The one with the screwed up foolish interpretation is you.
I have called it deviant behaviour; I will state here the "Census should have a section collecting information on gays as a population group."
Much could be learned about their deviant behaviour, why they do what they do, the impact on neighbors, the community's children, race relations, the impact on forlorn women who never marry because of a shortage of straight men, or the forlorn men who never marry because of a shortage of straight women.
The medical community could track any disease the gays spread, inoculate them, put them in quarantine to protect the general population.
Many good uses for a census section on gays.
Who

Maysville, GA

#16811 Jun 29, 2013
And it's bad enough we've got to deal with our own sexual deviants, now we got to deal with the illegal deviants also.

""Advocates focused their fury on several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, which considered more than 300 amendments to the bill, after the senators warned the chairman, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, that they would not vote for an amendment he wanted to introduce. The measure by Mr. Leahy, also a Democrat, would have allowed American citizens to seek permanent resident status — a document known as a green card — for a foreign same-sex partners."

Also,

"Federal Law Now Allows Immigration Benefits For Same-Sex Partners"

http://www.higbeeassociates.com/practices/imm...




danger zone

Warrior, AL

#16812 Jun 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
If it were legal I would take bets that there will be no or very little border security when this immigration bill passes. I wonder if they have any bets on this in Vegas?
ww.wnd.com/2013/06/loopholes-mean-amnesty-bef...
I was actually thinking the same, if Vegas is taking bets on Holder's fate. Also, odds on the immigration bill. Just curious.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16813 Jun 29, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't take long to figure out the "green squared" ones does it? They think that their "green square" proves that they are a cut above but all it really proves is their propensity for group think. They are incapable of independent thought. They need a badge to help boost their self esteem and identify themselves to the like minded. They are part of the ever shrinking minority of a warped existence that can only see as far as their pinched belief system can bare. A pitiful lot to say the least, but very funny in their incessant whining about an ever changing world that they thought they had control of but have found it slipping ever further from their understanding.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What an lock step Obamabot you are. You TRY to sound soooo intellectual, but your post is an EPIC fail. Can't WAIT for you to REALLY sample the world you CLAIM to be so ready for. lol

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16814 Jun 29, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't take long to figure out the "green squared" ones does it? They think that their "green square" proves that they are a cut above but all it really proves is their propensity for group think. They are incapable of independent thought. They need a badge to help boost their self esteem and identify themselves to the like minded. They are part of the ever shrinking minority of a warped existence that can only see as far as their pinched belief system can bare. A pitiful lot to say the least, but very funny in their incessant whining about an ever changing world that they thought they had control of but have found it slipping ever further from their understanding.
In reference to your "green square" comment, why don't you reveal your TRUE identity if you are SO evolved. rotfl You are a FRAUD. Run along.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16815 Jun 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
This is the final kiss of death for Rubio's so called Republican career. I don't remember, but wasn't Rubio a Tea Party favorite? I could be wrong. Doesn't matter now anyway does it?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
Yep! He's over in my book.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16816 Jun 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not claiming recognizing same sex marriage has any impact on me and even if it did, it would be irrelevant. The important impact is on society. In most civilized societies, marriage, for thousands of years, has been understood as the legal union of one man and one woman. It served to stabilize society and protect children. Now the US has decided to fundamentally redefine what constitutes marriage. Okay, where does it stop? Polygamists are already looking at this as their opening, and why shouldn't they. If marriage can be defined as both one man and one woman, and as two women and as two men - why not one man and two women?
What would be a valid argument against it, now that we have begun redefining marriage, what is the rationale to stop? And why not one woman and two men? Well, what about the children - which man is on the birth certificate? Would paternity tests be required at birth? Those are just two reasonable scenarios that could be argued for now.
Once marriage can be seen as fluid, doesn't it naturally follow that its significance must be diminished? We already have a huge segment of our population having children out of wedlock and we have seen the results - greater probability of growing up in poverty, greater chance of being abused, greater chance of not finishing high school, much less college, greater chance of ending up in jail.
Society has a vested interest in children being raised in a stable home, anything that further diminishes the odds of that, I consider a tragedy. In my opinion, the redefinition of marriage does that. That is my priority - the sanctity of marriage. What Jim and Bob do in the privacy of their home does not impact me, if they want some formal recognition of their relationship - fine, I understand that desire and can respect it - find some alternative term and have our legislatures recognize it - but don't call it marriage, because it isn't.
Don't expect you to agree and I've said my piece.
I agree 100% with your post. Although whom someone marries(I don't think same sex couple's "union" should be called marriage either) doesn't directly affect me, we all know that this is just the beginning. The minority rules now and all those who are celebrating the so-called "evolvement" of our society will most assuredly rue the day this pandora's box was opened. Even the most liberal will certainly get their toes stepped on sooner or later and then it will be too late.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#16817 Jun 29, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree 100% with your post. Although whom someone marries(I don't think same sex couple's "union" should be called marriage either) doesn't directly affect me, we all know that this is just the beginning. The minority rules now and all those who are celebrating the so-called "evolvement" of our society will most assuredly rue the day this pandora's box was opened. Even the most liberal will certainly get their toes stepped on sooner or later and then it will be too late.
What's up girl? Are you a lady of the night?*curious*

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16818 Jun 29, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>What's up girl? Are you a lady of the night?*curious*
lol Noooooo. I'm just a bit of a night owl these days.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#16819 Jun 30, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
...I have called it deviant behaviour; I will state here the "Census should have a section collecting information on gays as a population group."
Much could be learned about their deviant behaviour, why they do what they do, the impact on neighbors, the community's children, race relations, the impact on forlorn women who never marry because of a shortage of straight men, or the forlorn men who never marry because of a shortage of straight women.
The medical community could track any disease the gays spread, inoculate them, put them in quarantine to protect the general population.
Many good uses for a census section on gays.
Yeah, make 'em wear arm bands with little pink triangles.

Keep posting, your support is indispensable.
guest

United States

#16820 Jun 30, 2013
Who wrote:
Multiple polls link::
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
And many of the poll respondents probably dont even understand the questions and dont know who their elected reps are.
Why didn't you just post this and be done with it. You've exposed your complete foolishness here - "And many of the poll respondents probably dont even understand the questions and dont know who their elected reps are."

You blew it budreau, your true colors exposed and your whining can be heard all over the state. Same sex marriage, coming to your town next and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. Get yourself a "green square" like the rest of the self righteous crybabies on here. Y'all are just too funny for words.
Who

Maysville, GA

#16821 Jun 30, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, make 'em wear arm bands with little pink triangles.
Keep posting, your support is indispensable.

FYI:
Your favorite site, Huffinton Post, says,
"Census Bureau urges same-sex couples to be counted."

Looks like the gays are the ONES banding their own arms with those little pink triangles. ROFL
We look forward to seeing you around town with your arm band. ROFL.
Not saying you are gay, just a gay supporter. Not much difference huh.

Wear it to the Farmers Market for maximum effect.

This is just the beginning of government collecting data for future oppression. Remember the Nazis?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2010...



Who

Maysville, GA

#16822 Jun 30, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you just post this and be done with it. You've exposed your complete foolishness here - "And many of the poll respondents probably dont even understand the questions and dont know who their elected reps are."
You blew it budreau, your true colors exposed and your whining can be heard all over the state. Same sex marriage, coming to your town next and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. Get yourself a "green square" like the rest of the self righteous crybabies on here. Y'all are just too funny for words.

"Why didn't you just post this and be done with it."

Well duh! I did post it.
And what are my true colors? You don't say. you're like "bored monitor", with little understanding of the english language and the meaning of words. Yall have a lot of trouble understanding thought patterns with certain words because your fixed internal radar is faulty and corrupt.

i.e., see my previous post to Oh my, his radar has been broken since birth.


Who

Maysville, GA

#16823 Jun 30, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember the Nazis?

"On May 6, 1933, Nazi Youth of the Deutsche Studentenschaft made an organised attack on the Institute of Sex Research. A few days later the Institute's library and archives were publicly hauled out and burned in the streets of the Opernplatz. Around 20,000 books and journals, and 5,000 images, were destroyed. Also seized were the Institute's extensive lists of names and addresses of homosexuals. In the midst of the burning, Joseph Goebbels gave a political speech to a crowd of around 40,000 people. Hitler initially protected Röhm from other elements of the Nazi Party which held his homosexuality to be a violation of the party's strong anti-gay policy. However, Hitler later changed course when he perceived Röhm to be a potential threat to his power. During the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, a purge of those whom Hitler deemed threats to his power took place, he had Röhm murdered and used Röhm's homosexuality as a justification to suppress outrage within the ranks of the SA. After solidifying his power, Hitler would include gay men among those sent to concentration camps during the Holocaust."

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.

Richmond Hill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Black Racist Walmart Employees Unpunished after... (Jul '13) Tue black lady 37
Chatham County Tag PWX1438 Gray KIA Sedona (201... Apr 29 bloo mee 2
Does it matter? Apr 29 Need to know 1
News No charges for Georgia officer who shot handcuf... Apr 27 No doubt 1
News Editorial: Accept grand jury's decision in poli... Apr 27 Zeppelin 1
Review: Ultimate Detailing Apr 26 Allison 1
when blacks was running for president we had th... Apr 25 White Boy Walking 2
More from around the web

Richmond Hill People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]