Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27163 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.
<quoted text>
Scoffing at it does not disprove it.
There is nothing to prove. Your premise is false.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27164 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.
<quoted text>
Gender distinction is hardly false and not the only thing I mention.
Here, let me help you;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
A three nipple vagina man holds himself up as an authority on gender.

How ironic.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#27165 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Every point still true.
That's why it bugs you.
Smile.
It's merely opinion.
It doesn't bug me.
It makes you look silly, but you're pretty much used to that by now.

Muntzinga.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#27166 Jul 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post would have real impact if you specified what part of my post was false.
All of it was false. You're welcome.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27167 Jul 2, 2013
I procreated once. Guess what? I wasn't even married.

“Merry Yuletide”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#27168 Jul 2, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has confirmed otherwise.
I'll take the decision of SCOTUS over that of a geriatric troll with three nipples, a cooch, a wang, multiple "sanity certificates" and a psychotic alter ego "trapped" within his body.
Certainly, we will all do that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27169 Jul 3, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly, we will all do that.
Certainly you'all will do that.

It still doesn't change the fact that ss couples are drastically distinct from marriage, clearly not equal.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27170 Jul 3, 2013
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.

Ss couples violate the design of physical union.

Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.

Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.

Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.

The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27171 Jul 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples are not in any way 'married' like diverse gendered couples.
Ss couples violate the design of physical union.
Ss couples are still only ever a duplicate half of marriage.
Ss couples are mutually fruitless, a defect of mating behavior.
Ss couples infringe on the most distinct, unique and critical relationship of society. Imposing an imposter relationship by every measure of history and universal culture.
The assertion would be laughable if it was not so idiotic.
You have disqualified your own marriage.

Nice going cuntman.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#27172 Jul 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You have disqualified your own marriage.
Nice going cuntman.
He's desperate for company in his circus side show.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#27173 Jul 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly you'all will do that.
It still doesn't change the fact that ss couples are drastically distinct from marriage, clearly not equal.
Repeating your ignorant opinions doesn't change the fact that your opinions are not facts... not even close. It does, however, highlight how upset you are that more and more states are allowing same sex marriage and that nobody gives a flying frack about your acknowledgment or approval. You may go to your grave repeating your nonsense, but the only person it really affects is you. Good luck with that.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27174 Jul 3, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
He's desperate for company in his circus side show.
More likely a travelling freak show.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27175 Jul 3, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating your ignorant opinions doesn't change the fact that your opinions are not facts... not even close. It does, however, highlight how upset you are that more and more states are allowing same sex marriage and that nobody gives a flying frack about your acknowledgment or approval. You may go to your grave repeating your nonsense, but the only person it really affects is you. Good luck with that.
Fact; A homosexual couple is not the same as a married heterosexual couple.

Fact; A gay couple needs protection to have sex. A married heterosexual couple needs protection to not procreate.

Fact; The marriage of a heterosexual couple results in human fruit if they choose. A homosexual relationship will NEVER result in human fruit.

Fact; Heterosexual sex is healthy. Gay sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Fact; The male and female bodies were designed to engage sexually together. A duplicate gendered couple is sexually redundant.

Fact; Opposite genders united in marriage results in a completely unique blend of masculinity and femininity. Homosexual couples are only ever a duplicate of one gender.

This is just a start of distinctive facts.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27176 Jul 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact; A homosexual couple is not the same as a married heterosexual couple.
Fact; A gay couple needs protection to have sex. A married heterosexual couple needs protection to not procreate.
Fact; The marriage of a heterosexual couple results in human fruit if they choose. A homosexual relationship will NEVER result in human fruit.
Fact; Heterosexual sex is healthy. Gay sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Fact; The male and female bodies were designed to engage sexually together. A duplicate gendered couple is sexually redundant.
Fact; Opposite genders united in marriage results in a completely unique blend of masculinity and femininity. Homosexual couples are only ever a duplicate of one gender.
This is just a start of distinctive facts.
Who claimed they were?

False: Not if they are faithful to one another. Many married couples us protection to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The fact that a very high per cent of married men unfaithful means that they should consider using protection at all times.

WTF is human fruit? If you mean children, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned. 100% of lesbian pregnancies are planned. Gay and lesbian couples have families by design rather than chance.

False: Sex always carries the risk of STDs regardless of who, how and what. There is nothing demeaning about sex between a loving couple. You are full of shit as usual.

This is based on what exactly? Aren't you assuming that there exists a supreme designer? Prove, using readily verifiable, non-ontological evidence that such a designer exists.

"Duplicate Genders?" More BS.

That's enough bogus facts vagina man. STFU
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#27177 Jul 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
More likely a travelling freak show.
arent all gays part of a travelling freak show?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27178 Jul 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Fact; A homosexual couple is not the same as a married heterosexual couple.
Fact; A married heterosexual couple is not the same as a homosexual couple. Fact; there is absolutely no point whatsoever to the previous two facts. You don't have to be the same to be treated equally bunny. You have heard of the concept, similarly situated, at some point haven't you?
KiMare wrote:
Fact; A gay couple needs protection to have sex. A married heterosexual couple needs protection to not procreate.
Fact; neither part of the previous "fact" is completely factual. A "gay couple" does not need protection to have sex and not all "married heterosexual couples" need protection to not procreate and sometimes they do need protection to have sex.
KiMare wrote:
Fact; The marriage of a heterosexual couple results in human fruit if they choose. A homosexual relationship will NEVER result in human fruit.
Fact; the previously identified fact is nothing but a delusion. "Homosexual relationships" have been "resulting in human fruit" for so long now, some of them are grandparents. They may not do it the old-fashioned way, but the results are the same now ain't they dumpling?
KiMare wrote:
Fact; Heterosexual sex is healthy. Gay sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Fact; these amazing "facts" will come to a complete surprise to all those who've died as a direct consequence of having engaged in healthy heterosexual sex and all us gay folk who have never been harmed, remain perfectly healthy and more than a little bit superior to you and still have had a darned good time practicing our homosexuality. Bunny, bunny, bunny, you be funny.
KiMare wrote:
Fact; The male and female bodies were designed to engage sexually together. A duplicate gendered couple is sexually redundant.
Fact; you may have actually learned something in 8th grade biology and redundant features, lots of fun if you know what to do with them. We know we're not going into the sexual reproduction business here dumpling, you do realize there are other reasons to be married, don't you?
KiMare wrote:
Fact; Opposite genders united in marriage results in a completely unique blend of masculinity and femininity. Homosexual couples are only ever a duplicate of one gender.
Fact; I've always wanted to tell this story on here, you just gave me reason. Awhile back I rented a place to a guy whose wife left him for another woman. He was ex-Marine, sheriff's deputy, weight-lifter, 10 out of 10 on pretty much anybody's masculinity scale. I met the woman his wife left him for, he would be runner up as the most masculine on everybody's score card. Fact; the most naturally effeminate man I've ever met was also naturally heterosexual. Fact; there are heterosexual drag entertainers, many if not most transvestites are too.
KiMare wrote:
This is just a start of distinctive facts.
They are distinctive sweetie, nobody shares your crazy, but "facts" as most folk would know "facts" to be, sorry.

PS: Quit while you are behind.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#27179 Jul 3, 2013
Angered American wrote:
<quoted text>
arent all gays part of a travelling freak show?
Just like other people, some are. Take Bible thumping freaks for example. We have many freaks like that here on Topix.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27180 Jul 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Fact; A married heterosexual couple is not the same as a homosexual couple. Fact; there is absolutely no point whatsoever to the previous two facts. You don't have to be the same to be treated equally bunny. You have heard of the concept, similarly situated, at some point haven't you?
<quoted text> Fact; neither part of the previous "fact" is completely factual. A "gay couple" does not need protection to have sex and not all "married heterosexual couples" need protection to not procreate and sometimes they do need protection to have sex.
<quoted text>Fact; the previously identified fact is nothing but a delusion. "Homosexual relationships" have been "resulting in human fruit" for so long now, some of them are grandparents. They may not do it the old-fashioned way, but the results are the same now ain't they dumpling?
<quoted text>Fact; these amazing "facts" will come to a complete surprise to all those who've died as a direct consequence of having engaged in healthy heterosexual sex and all us gay folk who have never been harmed, remain perfectly healthy and more than a little bit superior to you and still have had a darned good time practicing our homosexuality. Bunny, bunny, bunny, you be funny.
<quoted text>Fact; you may have actually learned something in 8th grade biology and redundant features, lots of fun if you know what to do with them. We know we're not going into the sexual reproduction business here dumpling, you do realize there are other reasons to be married, don't you?
<quoted text> Fact; I've always wanted to tell this story on here, you just gave me reason. Awhile back I rented a place to a guy whose wife left him for another woman. He was ex-Marine, sheriff's deputy, weight-lifter, 10 out of 10 on pretty much anybody's masculinity scale. I met the woman his wife left him for, he would be runner up as the most masculine on everybody's score card. Fact; the most naturally effeminate man I've ever met was also naturally heterosexual. Fact; there are heterosexual drag entertainers, many if not most transvestites are too.
<quoted text>They are distinctive sweetie, nobody shares your crazy, but "facts" as most folk would know "facts" to be, sorry.
PS: Quit while you are behind.
Ah, tricky dicky ricky... more gay twirl wrapped in twisted denial.

1. To obtain equal rights fairly, you have to equate fundamentally. I have shown in numerous ways, starting with the very essence of marriage, that ss couples do not equate.

2. I'm sorry, but 'normally' and 'naturally', heterosexuals need protection not to procreate.

Homosexuals, attempting to imitate natural intercourse, MUST ALWAYS use numerous protections to be marginally safe. That is a simple biological and medical fact.

3. Homosexuals can mutually procreate? Really tricky dicky ricky, did you try to slip that stupidity by?

And the results? Marriage has a mother and father with a biological child, while ss couples have neither. Clearly not the same.

4. See point 2.

5. So you concede that physical and functional design condemn homosexual sex, with the silly claim that it is not important. Only a gay would say so.

6. Ah, the rare extremes out rule the normal? A butch lesbian dressing and acting like a man to attract another lesbian who almost wants a man?

The fact remains; The blending to two genders of femininity and masculinity results in a distinct union that no duplicate gendered relationship can ever create.

You never should have started honey.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27181 Jul 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
1. To obtain equal rights fairly, you have to equate fundamentally. I have shown in numerous ways, starting with the very essence of marriage, that ss couples do not equate.
You're still not paying attention buttercup, it really don't matter how many differences your little brain can come up with between same sex and opposite sex couples, as couples they are similarly situated, whether you "think" so or not. Sorry.
KiMare wrote:
2. I'm sorry, but 'normally' and 'naturally', heterosexuals need protection not to procreate.
Still no dear, over time, both normally and naturally, the need for protection to prevent procreation, completely unnecessary.
KiMare wrote:
Homosexuals, attempting to imitate natural intercourse, MUST ALWAYS use numerous protections to be marginally safe. That is a simple biological and medical fact.
Also still no sweetie, it isn't my fault that you've succeeded in educating yourself into blithering ignorance.
KiMare wrote:
3. Homosexuals can mutually procreate? Really tricky dicky ricky, did you try to slip that stupidity by?
And the results? Marriage has a mother and father with a biological child, while ss couples have neither. Clearly not the same.
A baby is still a baby regardless if you conceive in the marital bed, the back seat of dad's car, or the doctor's office, bunny. LEGALLY, homosexuals have been mutually procreating just like heterosexuals in similar circumstances for quite some time now. The same laws that have legally turned the biologically impossible offspring of heterosexual married couples into "their child" have done the same for us.
KiMare wrote:
4. See point 2.
Why? It was a stupid answer by you the first time around, it hasn't gotten better.
KiMare wrote:
5. So you concede that physical and functional design condemn homosexual sex, with the silly claim that it is not important. Only a gay would say so.
Have you always had such hallucinations or are you visiting me from an acid trip? Procreation or even the hope thereof has never been the only reason for marriage bunny.
KiMare wrote:
6. Ah, the rare extremes out rule the normal? A butch lesbian dressing and acting like a man to attract another lesbian who almost wants a man?
Sweetie, you couldn't find the point with a map and a Sherpa guide to show you where to look. Some women are normally and naturally masculine, some men, normally and naturally feminine and it isn't an affectation they pick up along their way, but the hand that nature dealt them. Some of these masculinized women and feminized men are homosexual, many are not.
KiMare wrote:
The fact remains; The blending to two genders of femininity and masculinity results in a distinct union that no duplicate gendered relationship can ever create.
You never should have started honey.
The fact remains that you should be seeking a second opinion for your you're not crazy letter.
Angered American

Rochester, MN

#27182 Jul 4, 2013
Lets face it folks

Men B_ttF_cking one another certainly isnt normal behaivor

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is A Race War Brewing? 2 min yon 53
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 559,647
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min WasteWater 265,189
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 9 min WasteWater 5,112
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 12 min WasteWater 96,747
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Aura Mytha 775,640
Most Topix Posters Are Douche Bags (May '09) 20 min d pantz 6
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 42 min preteen girl 605,050
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Chris Clearwater 175,684
More from around the web