rack these gays

[Tom In VA]

That dude sounds like a cocksucker.

[Goober McTuber]

Typical of the U & L.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.

I have you in my 2007 Death Pool. Die already.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing.

Yes, it is. Die, you cum gurgling faggot, die!

[YD]

Typical of the U & L.

uh oh, now you've done it..

[Diego in Seattle]

No real surprise to see some sub-moronic, polesmoking queerbait knocking down strawmen.

No suprise to see mvsidiot showing his ignorance of the issues involved.

[Rich Fader]

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing.

I'll go along with that...as long as same-sex couples are required to comply with the same terms. No cheating. AI is cheating. Surrogates are cheating. Adoption is cheating. Fair's fair.

WAR the law in its majesty

[War Wagon]

Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.

What point? What lack of logic?

The fallacy of that arguement is so astoundingly ridiculous, it borders on the sublime.

Are you a starving lawyer? Anyone racking that horseshit should starve.

[Diego in Seattle]

Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.

What point? What lack of logic?

The fallacy of that arguement is so astoundingly ridiculous, it borders on the sublime.

You're right. The fallacy that marriages should only be for hetero couples for the purpose of children is rediculous.

[BSmack]

When did social conservatives ever claim that marriage exists "solely for the purpose of procreation"? I thought their position was that marriage, by definition, had always and exclusively referred to a relationship between a man and a woman, and that the term "marriage" should not be expanded to include same sex relationships (which they regard as abnormal and deviant).

I hate to agree with 88 on this, but he's right. Gadow is completely off point when it comes to understanding the nature of his opposition.

[poptart]

rank these gays




2, 1, 3

[Derron]

I want to get off the first "beady eyed Jew boy " blast before anyone else does.

What a fucking joke, yet they get major run. Not eveh the most white bread right wing Bible thumping speed taking, ass fucking whore monger could go along with that idea.

[Goober McTuber]

Not eveh the most white bread right wing Bible thumping speed taking, ass fucking whore monger could go along with that idea.

Yeah, I didn’t really think you’d go along with it.

[Derron]

Not eveh the most white bread right wing Bible thumping speed taking, ass fucking whore monger could go along with that idea.

Yeah, I didn’t really think you’d go along with it.

But it is how you roll I am sure.

[Goober McTuber]

Not really, Derron, I’m for less government.

And less Derron.

[YD]

rank these gays




1,2

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I know you are but what am I?

I am rubber, you're glue.

You suck.

Epic stuff, guys... epic.

[Goober McTuber]

I am rubber, you're glue.

You suck.

Epic stuff, guys... epic.

Die, you cum gurgling faggot, die!

[Husker4ever]

You suck.

Epic stuff, guys... epic.

I've never encountered a cock that I wouldn't suck...it's true!

Just joining in the fun with changing quotes stuff

[Moving Sale]

When did social conservatives ever claim that marriage exists "solely for the purpose of procreation"?

Soley? No, but procreation is right in the Wash opinion (and others) as a reason to uphold the ban.

But then you knew that because you read it before shooting off your piehole right?

[Derron]

When did social conservatives ever claim that marriage exists "solely for the purpose of procreation"?

Soley? No, but procreation is right in the Wash opinion (and others) as a reason to uphold the ban.

But then you knew that because you read it before shooting off your piehole right?

Where the fuck did you come from ??

The minute somebody posts about fags and butt fucking you climb out of the basement and hit the keyboard. Thinking pro bono on this to take it all the way to the Supreme ??

This one a career maker for you ?? Might get you lots of work from your homies...har har har

[Moving Sale]

Where the fuck did you come from ??

Court.

The minute somebody posts about fags and butt fucking you climb out of the basement and hit the keyboard.

I also posted about Global Warming today.

Care to read anything into that?

Of course you do.

[War Wagon]

One day, the Court will render a decision on gay marriage and Loving will be cited with approval. One day society will wonder why such a big deal was made about gay marriage, just as today we easily see the flaws in criminalizing inter-racial marriages.

Fuck that noise.

Homesexuality or lesbianism or fucking sheep is just plain wrong. It's wrong, man. There is no comparison whatsoever between inter-racial and gay marriage.

[poptart]

Of course it is wrong, and Jsc's comparison is moronic.

Man was clearly anatomically designed for sexual relations with woman, and visa versa.
This being blatantly obvious, society is correct to insist that marriage be made up of man-woman.
Something outside this is a perversion which ought not receive societal sanction, blessing, or benefit.

There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.

[Diego in Seattle]

There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.

Not to the person of their own choice like you have.

[Diego in Seattle]

One day, the Court will render a decision on gay marriage and Loving will be cited with approval. One day society will wonder why such a big deal was made about gay marriage, just as today we easily see the flaws in criminalizing inter-racial marriages.

Fuck that noise.

Homesexuality or lesbianism or fucking sheep is just plain wrong. It's wrong, man.

WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.

[poptart]

There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.

Not to the person of their own choice like you have.

The problem is that you are a spoiled baby.
When did people start thinking that they should be entitled to do whatever the hell they want to do ... ?

There is a structure that society has set in place.
Rules and standards, in all different areas, that they have decided is good.

Marriage as man-woman is good.
It is correct.
It is proper.
It is anatomically OBVIOUS.

[War Wagon]

WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.

What issues?

There is no issue.

Homosexuality = abomination.

That's it, end of story, and no amount of justification will ever change that fact. If you want to embrace it, then so be it. More power to you. But don't expect me to legitamize it.

[Diego in Seattle]

There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.

Not to the person of their own choice like you have.

The problem is that you are a spoiled baby.
When did people start thinking that they should be entitled to do whatever the hell they want to do ... ?

It's not whatever the hell they want to do.....they just want to be able do whatever the hell that you are able to do (like choose whoever they want to marry).

There is a structure that society has set in place.
Rules and standards, in all different areas, that they have decided is good.

Which all must fall w/in the confines of the United States Constitution. Denying some people rights & privileges extended to others w/o cause is outside the "rules & standards" of the Constitution.

Marriage as man-woman is good.
It is correct.
It is proper.

Agreed. But can you provide a logical argument that a single-gender marriage isn't those things too (remember, you can't cite religious documents [separation of church & state] nor public opinion [unless you want to bring back slavery as well])?

It is anatomically OBVIOUS.

So you're in favor of bringing back sodomy laws? Your statement infers exactly that. Do you really want the police spending time peeking in people's bedrooms at night, checking to make sure they're making love in your "anatomically correct" manner?

[Diego in Seattle]

WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.

What issues?

There is no issue.

Homosexuality = abomination.

For you it is, and for my own taste as well. But I'm not calling for the denial of rights & privileges of those who like liver & onions just because I dislike that as well.

That's it, end of story, and no amount of justification will ever change that fact. If you want to embrace it, then so be it. More power to you. But don't expect me to legitamize it.

What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?

So you want a society that can deny rights & privileges based only on whether they like or dislike something or not (while the issue has no effect on others)??

Why do you hate America?

[smackaholic]

Homesexuality or lesbianism unless they are really hot or fucking sheep is just plain wrong. It's wrong, man. There is no comparison whatsoever between inter-racial and gay marriage.

ftfy

[Headhunter]

So I should be able to marry both my mother and grandmother at the same time, right? Marry whoever I want? And then my company will be forced to cover her under my issurance, as she is my legal spouse. The government will have to afforsd us the finacial benefits (yeah, marriage penalty, I know) of marriage. Insurance benefits will have to be paid out.

Quit fiddle fucking around with ancillary issues such as procreation or moral indignation and get right to the meat of the matter. The fags want cashe.

[Headhunter]

Why can't mom and I get married? What's wrong with that? She'd like my beni's at work. I could use her credit. Why can't I marry more than one woman?

[Tom In VA]

Why can't mom and I get married? What's wrong with that? She'd like my beni's at work. I could use her credit. Why can't I marry more than one woman?

Because no man deserves that level of punishment ?

[titlover]

WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.

What issues?

There is no issue.

Homosexuality = abomination.

For you it is, and for my own taste as well. But I'm not calling for the denial of rights & privileges of those who like liver & onions just because I dislike that as well.

That's it, end of story, and no amount of justification will ever change that fact. If you want to embrace it, then so be it. More power to you. But don't expect me to legitamize it.

What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?

So you want a society that can deny rights & privileges based only on whether they like or dislike something or not (while the issue has no effect on others)??

Why do you hate America?

what rights under the Constitution aren't being afforded to them, douche?

[Headhunter]

HH, even though you're stretching the argument to the extreme, I probably would be ok with you marrying your mom, or marrying more than one woman. As a matter of law, that is; I'd still think you're a sick fuck.

Of course I'm stretching the argument. So is homeboy who is saying that all marriages must result in a child.

So I guess you're racking me for exposing him?

you're a sick fuck.

After 7+ years on these boards that's still in question?


The point I'm making is that this is a financial issue, not a matter of "rights". And it's a slippery damn slope when you demand that your "differences" are ok. Where does bestiality come into play? Can I marry my dog? I've seen that tried before.

I'm fine with two fags professing their love for each other and living out their days as a loving couple. Just don't use law to force companies or individuals to provide them with benefits for said union.

[Diego in Seattle]

What issues?

There is no issue.

Homosexuality = abomination.

For you it is, and for my own taste as well. But I'm not calling for the denial of rights & privileges of those who like liver & onions just because I dislike that as well.

That's it, end of story, and no amount of justification will ever change that fact. If you want to embrace it, then so be it. More power to you. But don't expect me to legitamize it.

What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?

So you want a society that can deny rights & privileges based only on whether they like or dislike something or not (while the issue has no effect on others)??

Why do you hate America?

what rights under the Constitution aren't being afforded to them, douche?

Lots of them, dumbfuck.

Not to mention that while you can visit your beloved in the ICU, gays & lesbians can't.