Reuters: Major Anti-Gay Marriage Group in Financial Straits

A recent Reuters article exposes the financial cracks in ProtectMarriage.com, an anti-marriage equality group that is defending Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court.

[KittenKoder]

The wrong side is never profitable.

[Alvin]

I just donated 5 grand!

[KittenKoder]

Alvin wrote:

I just donated 5 grand!

So ... you paid for one leaflet in a newspaper that no one will read anyway. Meh.

[WeTheSheeple]

Illinois
Delaware
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Colorado
New Mexico
New Jersey

NOM can't afford to fight them all!

[Juanpaul]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So ... you paid for one leaflet in a newspaper that no one will read anyway. Meh.

Actually I used it to wipe my arse…came in handy.

[KittenKoder]

Fred wrote:

<quoted text>
What's up with your Ears? are you a queer? You look like one. Just saying.

Whether he is, or not, is not only not a concern of yours, it also has nothing to do with cosmetic features. His ears look fine too.

Why not pick on someone your own size. Go ahead, try your hardest ... of course you're too chicken to even post a pic of you on here, funny that.

[Tim Smith]

Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

[WeTheSheeple]

Tim Smith wrote:

Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

Oh look, it's David Moore from Pekin IL now posting from Germany.

Did they finally deport you for tying to have sex with your own kids?

[TheTroll Stopper]

Alvin aka the UnRighteous1 wrote:

I just donated 5 grand!

Suuuuuuuuuuuure you did, R1! LOLAY!

[Jordan]

Tim Smith wrote:

No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother

You're right, 2 men or 2 women cannot make a baby. Someone hand this genius a medal. You're implying the intent of marriage is the sole purpose of making babies - that's really ignorant.

What about infertile couples? Intersex individuals and single parents? You're basically saying they're not worthy of experiencing marriage. Furthermore, there has been a ton of research and studies concluding that a child does not need a mother and father specifically to do well in life, and 2 gay, loving parents are better than 1 (or none). May I also remind you that gay couples adopt children that heterosexual couples have given up on, so before you claim marriage equality is so damaging to society, think about the positives.

[Quest]

Tim Smith wrote:

Homosexual .........
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

David. in all the years you have posted this cut-and paste, and under all the different names, you have NEVER explained how one person's marriage and family can "disenfranchise" another person.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[KittenKoder]

Homosexuality A Disease wrote:

I suggest all queers get help ASAP. Your sickness will only get worse. For quicker results, I suggest shock therapy.

Sorry, but shock therapy is now being performed on bigots like you.

[Abe]

Juanpaul wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually I used it to wipe my arse…came in handy.

You're disgusting. And what's the deal with your ears?

[WeTheSheeple]

Abe wrote:

<quoted text>
You're disgusting. And what's the deal with your ears?

Sounds like you've got a boner for JuanPaul. Can't say I blame you, he is a cutie.

[Pattysboi]

fr "tim smith" who is really DAVID MOORE OF PEKIN IL:

>Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud....<

Wrong again, davy.

[KittenKoder]

NoQ wrote:

Of course you think it's harmless, what else could you say. You HO:HOS think perversion and sexual fetishes are ok. It's not, it's wrong, not to mention, confusing for children.

Irony. Did you know that unless you do it "doggy style" you are engaging in a fetish, correct?

[KittenKoder]

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you know that being a Queer as well as Queer sex is a mental illness derived from birth defects??

Yeah, at least they can't help being what they are. What's your excuse?

[Pattysboi]

fr NoQ:

>Did you know that being a Queer as well as Queer sex is a mental illness derived from birth defects??<

Not according to the AMA, bub. Sorry to burst your bubble, there...Well, maybe I'm not.

[KittenKoder]

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure glad to finally hear one of you freaks admit to being a product of birth defects.

I love how you call genetically induced abstinence, or asexual for short, "freakish." It's so ... ironic.

[Quest]

NoQ wrote:

<quoted text>
You really don't think that's freakish???

Why is different "freakish"?