• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

tammy bruce - "reject the gay elite"

Lothian said:
Which side of the gay community are you with on this issue ?
Click to expand...

I'm for equal rights and working towards making marriage a strong thing again. I am not for getting married in order to make headlines or to make a vacuous statement or as an art project.

Do I think 3 people should be able to get married to each other ? nope.

Do I think that german homosexual kid should be able to get married to that goat he was mounting in public ? nope.
 
shemp said:
I bet you learned all you know about the sanctity of marriage from Britney Spears.
Click to expand...


wow look, shimp can sample ! mayeb you should loop that from whatever goon said it before you and put a beat over it ! Instant disco stardome !

you're missing the point, again, shimp and trying to be hip.


In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.

Marriage is worth protecting, in more ways than one. It’s also worth noting the cavalier way in which heterosexuals have handled marriage has lent fuel to the fire of this issue.
Click to expand...
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:


I'm for equal rights and working towards making marriage a strong thing again. I am not for getting married in order to make headlines or to make a vacuous statement or as an art project.

Do I think 3 people should be able to get married to each other ? nope.

Do I think that german homosexual kid should be able to get married to that goat he was mounting in public ? nope.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe this is one you can answer:

Should two (2) people (humans) of the age of consent and seperated by at least two degrees of consanguinity (not related) have the same rights under the law w/r/t (with regard to) the recognition of their relationship (marriage) regardless of the respective genders (same or different) of those two (2) persons (humans)?
 
Suddenly said:


Okay, maybe this is one you can answer:

Should two (2) people (humans) of the age of consent and seperated by at least two degrees of consanguinity (not related) have the same rights under the law w/r/t (with regard to) the recognition of their relationship (marriage) regardless of the respective genders (same or different) of those two (2) persons (humans)?
Click to expand...


look goon, I understand that you're trying to make it look like Im avoiding the question. What may not be noticed is that you failed to comprehend something as simple as my first sentence. I support equal rights.......gay people should be able to get married legally...........but this isnt a case of black and white.....

I still have problems with heterosexual marriage and I dont feel like going on at length in this forum about it, because time and time again the reading/comprehension skills and verbiage among the liberals here is atrocious.

so Im off to learn about the dangers of snorting alcohol !
 
shemp said:
Sinister Wanker, I think your real problem is that you don't know which gender you are. You should be in favor of gay marriage, that way you don't have to figure out which gender you are.
Click to expand...

Oh man that is funny!

:D
 
not sure mounting a goat is a homosexual act.

Why do you assume that the people are getting "married" on a whim? Sure, some may be...but than homosexuals can be just as shallow as Britney Spears or Neal Bush when it comes to the sanctity of marriage (whatever that is). But your sweeping assertion is only that. Indeed, knowing a pair of commited individuals who went to S.F. and were "married", I can tell you that at least for one couple, it was anything but a whim. They struggled with the concept, how it would change their relationship, their futures, etc. What it said about their commitment to each other, etc. In short, not too different than what my wife and I struggled with when we got married.
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:



look goon, I understand that you're trying to make it look like Im avoiding the question. What may not be noticed is that you failed to comprehend something as simple as my first sentence. I support equal rights.......gay people should be able to get married legally...........but this isnt a case of black and white.....
Click to expand...
You answered the question ambiguiously. Your first sentence was "I'm for equal rights and working towards making marriage a strong thing again." Since many equate gay marriage with weakening marriage, I thought clarification was necessary. You have claified, except with quite a few qualifiers and escape hatches.


I still have problems with heterosexual marriage and I dont feel like going on at length in this forum about it, because time and time again the reading/comprehension skills and verbiage among the liberals here is atrocious.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Nice cop out. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the past pattern that the more you elaborate, the more the low quality of your positions becomes obvious. That makes you feel bad, because for you it is all about clinging to the delusion that you are better than all of us. Nope. Better you cling to the assumption that if we don't agree with you we must be too stupid to understand. That's much easier.


so Im off to learn about the dangers of snorting alcohol !
Click to expand...
More posterboy work, eh?
 
headscratcher4 said:
I can tell you that at least for one couple, it was anything but a whim. They struggled with the concept, how it would change their relationship, their futures, etc. [/B]
Click to expand...


wait....if it wasnt a whim....why the bloody hell did they go out to the california carnival and so something that wont even matter in a few months.....it's not genuinely legal there...it's just a fluke that wont hold up once they leave...I think it's simply histrionic...

mass. is a different story though.
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:


only in this crowd, Crossdress

only in this crowd.
Click to expand...

Oh wow!

Since NTW is trotting out this horse again I must assume that he is still having problems with his sexual identity.
 
Suddenly said:


Okay, maybe this is one you can answer:

Should two (2) people (humans) of the age of consent and seperated by at least two degrees of consanguinity (not related)
Click to expand...

Why this limitation?
 
Relatives being excluded has a scientific basis.

Age of consent? Somewhere between 9 & 29 depending on the individual & the culture. Nothing here but the pheeew factor.

Two? Why not 15? BTW, I actually think 2 is a function of biological imperatives couple with a desire to produce and raise offspring that in turn reproduce. Culture is part of what is reproduced imo.
 
hammegk said:
Relatives being excluded has a scientific basis.

Age of consent? Somewhere between 9 & 29 depending on the individual & the culture.

Two? Why not 15?
Click to expand...
16.5, and that's my final offer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom