Should same-sex marriage become legal?

[NOHOS BIG BLACK LIPS]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are all fundies racists who can't tell the difference between women and men?
You are a sad fundie b!tch who wishes I had balls so they could bounce off of your chin. Sorry, bro, I'm a chick.

I just took a sh!t that looks exactly like you but smells a lot better!

[Rose_NoHo]

NOHOS BIG BLACK LIPS wrote:

<quoted text>
I just took a sh!t that looks exactly like you but smells a lot better!

Damn, you are so pathetic you have to copy off of my fart jokes.
Figures, you're just a dumb racist fundie.
Keep following me like the little yappy dog you are.

[Ken]

Robsan5 wrote:

<quoted text>
Or your mom? It's so hard to tell with that beard...
But thanks for admitting that you don't have a valid secular arguement against same-sex marriage, so you instead resort to petty personal attacks.
Robert

Oh, Robert...

My mom would not be likely to be in a men's room first of all, you silly goose. A personal attack from you....you who rebuke others for that...Bit of a hypocrite?

Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton, and passed with large majorities in Congress is where I stand. Marriage is a long standing custom, across many cultures, between a man and a woman.

I was actually ok with civil unions, but when your side demanded the word marriage, I was appalled at the selfishness and total disregard for compromise. Now I am opposed to civil unions as well.

I could care less what you do in bed, believe me! Go on with your so-called marriage...many in this country still consider it a sham, and I always will.

As a practicing Catholic, I consider abortion murder. Should I think otherwise just because some lawyer/judge says it isn't? I think not.

Now off with you....I hear they're rerunning some old Dame Edna tapes at the local gay pick-up bar.

[Rick in Kansas]

Ken wrote:

Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton, and passed with large majorities in Congress is where I stand. Marriage is a long standing custom, across many cultures, between a man and a woman.

You may want to brace yourself for this, but that law you extol the virtues of has been ruled unconstitutional in every case where it has been decided and likely facing the same fate when it goes before the Supreme Court this fall.

Ken wrote:

I was actually ok with civil unions, but when your side demanded the word marriage, I was appalled at the selfishness and total disregard for compromise. Now I am opposed to civil unions as well.

We had to get all uppity and insist on being given full equality in having access to the exact same laws which govern opposite sex marriage. You were willing to offer us second class status, but not any more and its all our own fault you chose to go full on irrational bigot.

Ken wrote:

I could care less what you do in bed, believe me! Go on with your so-called marriage...many in this country still consider it a sham, and I always will.

Dear, your childish bitterness is your problem, not ours. Your approval of our marriages isn't being asked foe and it certainly isn't a requirement.

Ken wrote:

As a practicing Catholic, I consider abortion murder. Should I think otherwise just because some lawyer/judge says it isn't? I think not.

Thinking not seems to be a specialty. No one is asking you to. You are not only free to shake your fist at reality and snarl, you have the right to.

[Robsan5]

Pardon the typo:
Many catholics in this country support same-sex marriage, more that oppose it:
Should read:
Many catholics in this country support same-sex marriage, more THAN oppose it:

Robert

[Selecia Jones- JAX FL]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/david-bl...

[Charlie Feather]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
You already posted that nonsense and ad hominem BS.
1. Yes you have described civil marriage.
2. All families may or may not have children and pets. What is your point?
3. Agree. Marriage does not provide stability.
4. Agree. OTOH why underestimate the power of love?
5. You missed the point. When I spoke about the fundamental right to marry the person you love, I was speaking only about the freedom to do so and to enjoy equal protection of the law.
You can dispense with the childish belittling remarks. It only makes you look worse.

There is no freedom to obligate others to recognize or support your private relationships.

[WasteWater]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no freedom to obligate others to recognize or support your private relationships.

It is called equal protection of the law as specified in the 14th amendment.

[WasteWater]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no freedom to obligate others to recognize or support your private relationships.

Why not go help people who need help instead of wasting your time here?

http://lakotalaw.org/special-reports/special-...

[Charlie Feather]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
It is called equal protection of the law as specified in the 14th amendment.

Equal protection for equal things. Gay couples do not equal opposite-sex couples. Love is not the criterium.

[Charlie Feather]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not go help people who need help instead of wasting your time here?
http://lakotalaw.org/special-reports/special-...

Why don’t you mind your own business?

[WasteWater]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
Equal protection for equal things. Gay couples do not equal opposite-sex couples. Love is not the criterium.

They are both citizens, have families, own property, vote, and pay taxes. They are entitled to equal protection of the law.

[WasteWater]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don’t you mind your own business?

It is my business when oppressed people ask for my help. It is my business when my taxes are spent destroying a people and used to both enrich and promote Republican crooks Charlie Red Apple.

[Charlie Feather]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
They are both citizens, have families, own property, vote, and pay taxes. They are entitled to equal protection of the law.

None of the above are the criteria for equality.

[Charlie Feather]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
It is my business when oppressed people ask for my help. It is my business when my taxes are spent destroying a people and used to both enrich and promote Republican crooks Charlie Red Apple.

No! It is not your business! You are a meddling do-gooder, busy-body, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, hypocrite liberal!

Just SHUT UP and never be heard from again!!

[Robsan5]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
Equal protection for equal things. Gay couples do not equal opposite-sex couples. Love is not the criterium.

Weak and lame, Charles.

Robert

[Robsan5]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
No! It is not your business! You are a meddling do-gooder, busy-body, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, hypocrite liberal!
Just SHUT UP and never be heard from again!!

Says the meddling oppressor, busy-body, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, hypocrite bigot!
Please follow your own commands!!
Wow, you really don't have a single valid argument, do you?

Robert

[Robsan5]

Charlie Feather wrote:

<quoted text>
No! It is not your business! You are a meddling do-gooder, busy-body, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, hypocrite liberal!
Just SHUT UP and never be heard from again!!

Charles,
I just love the way you try to use "do-gooder" as an insult.
Does that mean you are a "do-badder"?

Robert

[Ken]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>You may want to brace yourself for this, but that law you extol the virtues of has been ruled unconstitutional in every case where it has been decided and likely facing the same fate when it goes before the Supreme Court this fall.
<quoted text>We had to get all uppity and insist on being given full equality in having access to the exact same laws which govern opposite sex marriage. You were willing to offer us second class status, but not any more and its all our own fault you chose to go full on irrational bigot.
<quoted text>Dear, your childish bitterness is your problem, not ours. Your approval of our marriages isn't being asked foe and it certainly isn't a requirement.
<quoted text>Thinking not seems to be a specialty. No one is asking you to. You are not only free to shake your fist at reality and snarl, you have the right to.

Bitter? Oh, quite the contrary....but my personal life is none of your business...

Quite often I have had glances, cause your type seems to like masculine guys in the sack, then back to the sissy-Marys for lunch at a trendy bistro where you can exchange acid quips with the 'girls'...then off to a Judy Garland film revival...Thanks, but no thanks.

Now back to the mirror to reissure yourself you are so desireable, noticing a few wrinkles, hmmmm?

Yes, I am your foe and my dislike of your ilk is enduring and infinite.

I'd tell ya to go f##k yourself, but I'm sure any guy at the local tearoom will be glad to oblige.

[Ken]

Robsan5 wrote:

Pardon the typo:
Many catholics in this country support same-sex marriage, more that oppose it:
Should read:
Many catholics in this country support same-sex marriage, more THAN oppose it:
Robert

There are Catholics who follow the church teachings....and

There are Catholics who should be Episcopalians....A cafeteria faith where you pick and choose the beliefs you like, and pass up those you don't.

Nobody is forced to stay a Catholic....the door is open to leave if you don't agree.