So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Aug 17, 2012 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Comments (Page 834)

Showing posts 16,661 - 16,680 of18,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18243
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie.
I have never said marriage is only about children.
I said the government interest is only about children.
Those weren't my vows silly girl.
Snicker.
Calling a man a girl, after being repeatedly corrected, simply enforces the idea of you being mentally deranged. You thoughts are all messed up, a confused bundle of thoughts that get in the way of reality.

You did claim that marriage was about reproduction. The government already has a plan in place for parents and their children (not marriage) and so marriage is not about the government's support of children.
If that were true, as many have stated, yet you continue to ignore for you know you are wrong:
-infertile people would not be able to marry
-elderly people would not be able to marry
-divorce would be outlawed

You are wrong.
Purely and simply wrong.
Otherwise, you would have an answer to my above paragraph instead of "gay twirl," which only yells that you have no answer.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18244
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You already answered my question. The only reason government has to be involved in marriage is because of the children and the weaker partner (mother).
If you remove the issue of children, you again raise the question; What prevailing reason does government have in supporting and regulating selective friendships?
Smile.
Ah, turning into a Cool Hand Luke, I see.
You haven't answered my questions.
You continue to deny reality by refusing to submit a valid reason for banning gay people from marriage.
You know that there is no valid reason to do so.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18245
Jan 13, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're making things up.
That's because you CAN'T provide a source.
It doesn't exist.
Logic defeats you and so you continue to deny reality. When are you going to accept the facts?
You made stupid unvalidated claims, I didn't.

Prove that there are not defective mutations.

Snicker.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18246
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You made stupid unvalidated claims, I didn't.
Prove that there are not defective mutations.
Snicker.
Prove that anal sex is unnatural, when it certainly occurs in nature (the very definition of natural).
You made an "unvalidated" (not even a word) claim yourself by stating that anal sex was unnatural.
Then you refused to back up your INvalid claim.
Quit trying to change the subject, that has nothing to do with my reply nor the comment I replied to.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18247
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You already answered my question. The only reason government has to be involved in marriage is because of the children and the weaker partner (mother).
If you remove the issue of children, you again raise the question; What prevailing reason does government have in supporting and regulating selective friendships?
Smile.
<quoted text>
Hence the government has no authority to regulate or support your definition of marriage.
Snicker.
No, he answered your question, which has nothing to do with marriage.
Is your wife happy that you only consider her as a friend?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18248
Jan 13, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling a man a girl, after being repeatedly corrected, simply enforces the idea of you being mentally deranged. You thoughts are all messed up, a confused bundle of thoughts that get in the way of reality.
You did claim that marriage was about reproduction. The government already has a plan in place for parents and their children (not marriage) and so marriage is not about the government's support of children.
If that were true, as many have stated, yet you continue to ignore for you know you are wrong:
-infertile people would not be able to marry
-elderly people would not be able to marry
-divorce would be outlawed
You are wrong.
Purely and simply wrong.
Otherwise, you would have an answer to my above paragraph instead of "gay twirl," which only yells that you have no answer.
1. You have a girl's name. I should know.

2. The government's plan for children is marriage. I have already posted SCOTUS judgments expressing that. You have no counter.

3. As stated many times before, the situations you note are so rare, the government didn't address them. Equating a group who is 100% barren and defective is a whole different issue.

Two men don't need the support and protection women and children do. If you are a man, man up!

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18250
Jan 13, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he answered your question, which has nothing to do with marriage.
Is your wife happy that you only consider her as a friend?
Exactly what I said.

Marriage is much more than your dumbed down definition which makes it only friendship.

She's my wife because we are married, and the mother of our children. We were friends before that. The only identity you have with marriage is what existed before marriage; friendship.

Snicker smile.

Snicker.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18251
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You have a girl's name. I should know.
2. The government's plan for children is marriage. I have already posted SCOTUS judgments expressing that. You have no counter.
3. As stated many times before, the situations you note are so rare, the government didn't address them. Equating a group who is 100% barren and defective is a whole different issue.
Two men don't need the support and protection women and children do. If you are a man, man up!
Snicker.
1. So now shoe laces have a gender, and it's female?
2. No, the government gives benefits to those who have children, outside of marriage. Marriage would not exist ANYWHERE for same sex couples if what you say is true. Yet look at where we are and look at where we'll be. No matter what you say, the fact of the matter is still that reproduction isn't a part of marriage and same sex couples will have the right to marry.
3. "Equating a group who is 100% barren and defective is a whole different issue." Gay people have children and raise children, therefore your logic is severely flawed. You think people that have no chance of taking part in reproduction don't matter but those who can do matter? And your argument is reproduction?
You really should get your opinions sorted out, for that doesn't make sense.

Besides, reproduction isn't important anymore, it's actually a problem.

Keep on denying reality, you only show people how deluded you are with every boring and repetitive post.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18252
Jan 13, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what I said.
Marriage is much more than your dumbed down definition which makes it only friendship.
She's my wife because we are married, and the mother of our children. We were friends before that. The only identity you have with marriage is what existed before marriage; friendship.
Snicker smile.
Snicker.
He answered your question about friendships, that has nothing to do with marriage. Why you continue to ask questions that have nothing to do with the topic astound me. Then you sit there smirking as if you said something smart.
News flash; you didn't.

You're the one dumbing it down to friendship, no one else is.

No, by your definition, she is your friend and machine to spit out babies.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18253
Jan 13, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So now shoe laces have a gender, and it's female?
2. No, the government gives benefits to those who have children, outside of marriage. Marriage would not exist ANYWHERE for same sex couples if what you say is true. Yet look at where we are and look at where we'll be. No matter what you say, the fact of the matter is still that reproduction isn't a part of marriage and same sex couples will have the right to marry.
3. "Equating a group who is 100% barren and defective is a whole different issue." Gay people have children and raise children, therefore your logic is severely flawed. You think people that have no chance of taking part in reproduction don't matter but those who can do matter? And your argument is reproduction?
You really should get your opinions sorted out, for that doesn't make sense.
Besides, reproduction isn't important anymore, it's actually a problem.
Keep on denying reality, you only show people how deluded you are with every boring and repetitive post.
1. Even if you spelled laces right, we'd still not know you were a boy.

2. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage' anywhere. There is the brief claim of that, but everyone knows the difference. That is why they are prefaced with 'gay'.

3. No gay couple in all of human history anywhere has ever had children. How stupid are you??? Gay couples ACQUIRE children by DEFAULT to the DETRIMENT of the child.

The above is simply proof you are a blonde girl, with the emphasis on blonde...

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18254
Jan 13, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He answered your question about friendships, that has nothing to do with marriage. Why you continue to ask questions that have nothing to do with the topic astound me. Then you sit there smirking as if you said something smart.
News flash; you didn't.
You're the one dumbing it down to friendship, no one else is.
No, by your definition, she is your friend and machine to spit out babies.
Yes he and you both answered my question.

Gay unions are nothing more than romantic friendships. And as you noted, the government has no business in the friendship business.

I'm not sure how wise it is to say I dumbed down friendship to relate it to your gay relationship... Are you sure you know what you are saying again???

Snicker smile.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18255
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
Your question was, how are men and women different.
I answered the question and now you agree with me.
My wife and I were married twelve years before we had our sons. She like most women found her greatest fulfillment in a career as a mother among the several she succeeded in, including owning several businesses.
I responded with a matching pun to your wit.
I would disagree about the grizzly, not just because of your body hair, but also because evolution has dictated and demanded a mother will protect her child like no other person on the planet. Except maybe the father.
As to your man, maybe. Maybe he and I are of the older generation, the last of the gentleman chauvinists. I was referring to your PC social engineering and the ancient cultural experiment with a extreme maternal society.
What I ponder with wonder about the Bible, is that 40 authors writing 60 books over thousands of years and compiled long ago is so consistent on so many subjects. Gender roles is just one. You made the claim my understanding was mistaken, I simply asked you to expose that. The withdrawal of that silly challenge is the wisest thing I've experienced you doing.
As to truck driving, you may have the skeleton of my life, if that. Construct what you will, but this is certain; it looks nothing like the real me.
:-)
You claim that all men are physically stronger than all women. That is undeniably incorrect and an impossible claim. There are millions of out-of-shape, weak men and millions of in-shape, strong women who can prove your claim to be false. As I said before, you love to put genders in neat, little boxes but the diversity of our society can't be boxed. For example, I can rock an evening gown and high heels like a celebrity, but I also played rugby in college. Your idea of male and female is so archaic and we have evolved past that.

My husband is a gentleman, not a chauvinist. If he was one, I wouldn't be married to him. He treats me as an equal and our marriage is strong because of it. You enjoy your marriage as it is and that is your right. Each couple has the right to define and live their marriage the way they want. You have no right to define it for them.

I'm sure that successful theologians choose careers as truck drivers all the time. You'll have to excuse me if I feel that arguing with a truck-driving theologian about the Bible would be a waste of my time.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18256
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You have a girl's name. I should know.
2. The government's plan for children is marriage. I have already posted SCOTUS judgments expressing that. You have no counter.
3. As stated many times before, the situations you note are so rare, the government didn't address them. Equating a group who is 100% barren and defective is a whole different issue.
Two men don't need the support and protection women and children do. If you are a man, man up!
Snicker.
If the government's plan for children is marriage, why would you deny it for the children of gay parents?

Gay people are not "barren". They may not be able to have children between the gay couple, but they can certainly still procreate by other means.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18258
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Even if you spelled laces right, we'd still not know you were a boy.
2. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage' anywhere. There is the brief claim of that, but everyone knows the difference. That is why they are prefaced with 'gay'.
3. No gay couple in all of human history anywhere has ever had children. How stupid are you??? Gay couples ACQUIRE children by DEFAULT to the DETRIMENT of the child.
The above is simply proof you are a blonde girl, with the emphasis on blonde...
Snicker.
1. After having it repeated multiple times that I am a man you continue to try and delude yourself into thinking I am a woman. Your delusions and denial of facts run your life. I misspell "laces" on purpose and it has nothing to do with the subject. Besides the fact that you're an uneducated sexist pig.

2. No, there is no such thing as "gay" marriage, only marriage.
A marriage can't be homosexual. No matter what you say, same sex couples have married, do marry, and will marry, in many places and more to come. I plan to get married to the love of my life in a year or so. Does it affect you? No, it simply pisses you off that you can't make yourself out to be on top of others. You can continue in your friendship, I'll live my life with my one and only, my soon to be husband.

3. How stupid are YOU? A couple raising a child is a parent. The end. There are ways to make a child related to both parents, through advances in science. There are surrogates and so on. Adopted children are still the couple's children.
Your denial of reality doesn't change those facts.
In the case of adoption, they might not be the biological parents, but they are still the parents. Parents are those that raise the child, not those that give them away for adoption.

Now, you've yet to make a VALID argument, please do so or continue to embrace your denial without me. Why do you oppose marriage equality? Reproduction is instantly invalid for those who are infertile can marry, along with the elderly.

You can, as stated above (but I will state again because you seem to have trouble reading unless it's repeated), either continue you denial of reality and facts, or you can bring forth and actual argument.

I know you won't though, because you don't have any valid arguments.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18259
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he and you both answered my question.
Gay unions are nothing more than romantic friendships. And as you noted, the government has no business in the friendship business.
I'm not sure how wise it is to say I dumbed down friendship to relate it to your gay relationship... Are you sure you know what you are saying again???
Snicker smile.
Sorry, we have relationships. It's fine for you to simply have a friendship with a baby machine, that's not the majority of people's definition of marriage.

Keep your friendship, I'll take my marriage.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18260
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim that all men are physically stronger than all women. That is undeniably incorrect and an impossible claim. There are millions of out-of-shape, weak men and millions of in-shape, strong women who can prove your claim to be false. As I said before, you love to put genders in neat, little boxes but the diversity of our society can't be boxed. For example, I can rock an evening gown and high heels like a celebrity, but I also played rugby in college. Your idea of male and female is so archaic and we have evolved past that.
My husband is a gentleman, not a chauvinist. If he was one, I wouldn't be married to him. He treats me as an equal and our marriage is strong because of it. You enjoy your marriage as it is and that is your right. Each couple has the right to define and live their marriage the way they want. You have no right to define it for them.
I'm sure that successful theologians choose careers as truck drivers all the time. You'll have to excuse me if I feel that arguing with a truck-driving theologian about the Bible would be a waste of my time.
I'm sure his baby-dispenser wife (which is actually just a friend, remember, his definition of marriage is simple friendship) is a masochist, for I can't see any other reason she'd stay with this bucket of crazy.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18261
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lacez wrote:
I'm sure his baby-dispenser wife (which is actually just a friend, remember, his definition of marriage is simple friendship) is a masochist, for I can't see any other reason she'd stay with this bucket of crazy.
There is little doubt in my mind that he is NOT an intersexed individual. Such people do not call themselves hermaphrodites and they are not sexist pigs because they are genetically, both. This guy is the true definition of an internet troll and not worth our time.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18262
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
There is little doubt in my mind that he is NOT an intersexed individual. Such people do not call themselves hermaphrodites and they are not sexist pigs because they are genetically, both. This guy is the true definition of an internet troll and not worth our time.
Oh no doubt about it. But it's still nice to think of how stupid he's showing himself to be. If others take a look, they'll see how nutter he is and they'll be even more convinced (and rightly so) of how insane the anti-gay people are.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18263
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim that all men are physically stronger than all women. That is undeniably incorrect and an impossible claim. There are millions of out-of-shape, weak men and millions of in-shape, strong women who can prove your claim to be false. As I said before, you love to put genders in neat, little boxes but the diversity of our society can't be boxed. For example, I can rock an evening gown and high heels like a celebrity, but I also played rugby in college. Your idea of male and female is so archaic and we have evolved past that.
My husband is a gentleman, not a chauvinist. If he was one, I wouldn't be married to him. He treats me as an equal and our marriage is strong because of it. You enjoy your marriage as it is and that is your right. Each couple has the right to define and live their marriage the way they want. You have no right to define it for them.
I'm sure that successful theologians choose careers as truck drivers all the time. You'll have to excuse me if I feel that arguing with a truck-driving theologian about the Bible would be a waste of my time.
I claimed no such thing. As a general rule, what I said is absolutely true. Society has little say in these things, evolution far more.

You confuse treating each other equally with respect with having equal abilities. If men and women were equal in abilities, two genders would be unnecessary.

So you believe a truck driver is kicking gay twirl ass? Doesn't say much about your argument, does it?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18264
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
There is little in my mind.
I'm sorry.

:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 16,661 - 16,680 of18,016
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••