Another win for fags.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:50 am

The issue for me isn't more or less unusual arrangements, Phibes - because people should be free to do as they please.
I don't CARE what people want to do with their life.

The issue for me is government sanctioning of homosexual marriage.
It's preposterous.

'TARD, your thinking is deep within the current government-marriage paradigm.
Take your mind into a different paradigm, one in which the government is completely OUT of marriage, and you could find that all legal implications would find a natural resolution.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:22 am

Well if you mean by "taking government out of marriage" (a very clumsy phrase), that religious based ballot prop initiatives denying people marriage rights be stricken from the books, sure. That is what you meant, right? Because these Deuteronomists are the ONLY obstacle to people marrying whomever they like. Usually Mormons, but standard loony Christers are all in as well, as Bachmann essentially bases her entire campaign on this non-issue.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:35 am

Well if you mean by "taking government out of marriage" (a very clumsy phrase), that religious based ballot prop initiatives denying people marriage rights be stricken from the books, sure. That is what you meant, right?

Of course.

I'm in favor or government not handing out marriage licenses to ANYONE.

But I also know that this will be happening right around... never.

That being the reality, the logical and rightful standard for marriage is MAN-WOMAN.

Any government (federal or state) which sanctions MAN-MAN marriage has lost all sense of reality and has launched itself to Planet Dipshit.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:41 am

What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?

Probably the same words you use to justify abortion.

Once again, fuck you.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:56 am

War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, dumbass. It protects them from government interference.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:02 am

Jsc810 wrote:Since it is all so logical and rightful to you, would you mind explaining why you think it is appropriate to deny a fundamental constitutional right to a class of citizens merely because your delicate sensitivities are offended?

With very few exceptions, anyone can marry anyone - of the opposite sex. Gays can marry members of the opposite sex also. Those rights are protected. If they choose not to, that is their right also....

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:03 am

Jsc, I DON'T think the freedom to marry should have ever been denied to gays, and I've said it twice in this thread.
Marriage isn't something the gov is constitutionally called on to be involved in.

So in a correct constitutional republic - fags, go get married.
I don't care.
It's your life and it's your business.

But the gov PUT ITSELF into it, as it does in SO many areas which it clearly does not belong.
And they've set a standard: man-woman.
If the government IS going to be involved, yes, surely man-woman is the correct standard.

I don't doubt that this will go to the supreme court and that ultimately, gay marriage will be given universal equality to hetero marriage.

Conservatives ought to give up trying to block gay marriage and instead push for what is rightful and correct - which is government OUT of marriage entirely, and government staying within it's constitutional boundaries.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:36 am

War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?

The issue isn't just "rights." Try re-reading the 14th Amendment, dumbfuck.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:49 am

Diego, the institution of marriage (man/woman) has pre-dated the U.S. legislature by a LONG time.
So a new legislature coming along and saying, "No, no... THIS is marriage," and COMPLETELY remaking it, takes absurdity to new heights.

As The Seer has said, understanding what the instition of marriage is (in it's man/woman form which has pre-dated our legislature), nobody is being denied any right.
Anyone is free to marry.

Further, government can justify it's involvement in marriage on the basis of seeking to promote family stability and procreation.

Fag marriage does neither and instead is done for the gratification of buttfucking deviants.

Only people who have become twisted and confused would support it.

Son, somewhere along the trail, you lost your mind.

Track back and see if you can find where you lost it.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:22 am

Getting back to the initial thread..

A gathering of First Ladies

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:40 am

Laura Fotusky, nice job!

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:02 am

poptart wrote:Diego, the institution of marriage (man/woman) has pre-dated the U.S. legislature by a LONG time.
So a new legislature coming along and saying, "No, no... THIS is marriage," and COMPLETELY remaking it, takes absurdity to new heights.

So the government had no business abolishing slavery, as that institution had been around much longer than the U.S. legislature by a LONG time as well. Got it (not suprising for a conservative to feel that way).

As The Seer has said, understanding what the instition of marriage is (in it's man/woman form which has pre-dated our legislature), nobody is being denied any right.

Again, re-read the 14th Amendment. Rights aren't the only thing that are being protected.

Anyone is free to marry.

As long as they marry the person who you choose? Got it. That sure is equal.

Further, government can justify it's involvement in marriage on the basis of seeking to promote family stability and procreation.

So you're saying that hetero couples who are infertile should be denied the ability to marry? Got it. So if Wolfman were to be single & he met the woman that is his current wife, they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate? Got it.

Fag marriage does neither and instead is done for the gratification of buttfucking deviants.

Based on what? Oh, that's right...you believe that this country should be a theocracy...got it. You don't have a problem with government being run by the Phelps inbreds, do you?

Only people who have become twisted and confused would support it.

Which was what was said about interracial marriages a few decades ago. Try moving your life up a few decades, dipshit.

Son, somewhere along the trail, you lost your mind.

Track back and see if you can find where you lost it.

Someone who believes in imaginary beings is saying that I've lost my mind? That's rich!

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:41 am

I guess you dont read your history much? huh dipshit? ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.

read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.

today, we here in the USA are at the beginning stages, you are slowly seeing the gay agenda creep forward, with emphasis on the word, "creep" THERE is a little known organization called, "NAMBLA" ever heard of them? heck, you probably have their "mission statement stuck to your bedroom wall with your dried up cum. BUT, I digress, we are slowly but surely going the way of the roman empire, with each passing decade, we become more and more decadent, and gays become more and more brazen.

torward the end of rome, it was not uncommon to see gays sucking each other off in broad daylight. incest was more common than normal relations. Rome wasnt built in a day, BUT, the sick queer lifestyle sure brought it to its knees. :twisted:

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:07 pm

Yeah, homosexuality was the cause of the fall of Rome.

Any other bright conclusions?

And since you're such a fan of learning from history, try looking up feudalism & how that worked out dipshit.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:21 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:Yeah, homosexuality was the cause of the fall of Rome. Any other bright conclusions?

And since you're such a fan of learning from history, try looking up feudalism & how that worked out dipshit.

hey dipshit? who said it was the ONLY cause? all I am saying is that it moved it along quite nicely.
dumb fuck! :twisted:

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:30 pm

Diego, as usual, when someone produces multiple "So you're saying..." takes, they defecate all over themself.

You didn't disappoint.

Once upon a time, the gov sanctioned slavery.
Currently, the gov sanctions marriage.

The gov should do as they did with slavery - and stop sanctioning it.

But I don't expect them to stop sanctioning marriage, so the next best thing is to maintain the obvious and rightful standard for the institution of marriage which existed LONG before the U.S. legislature came into being.

Equating government sanction of slavery to government sanction of marriage makes you a cataclysmic 'tard.
No, seriously - you're an honest to goodness 'tard, 'tard.

What is it about the 14th amendment that has your face turning blue?

Diego wrote:you believe that this country should be a theocracy...got it

Link?

So you're saying that hetero couples who are infertile should be denied the ability to marry?

Of course not.
Alan Keyes will answer this question VERY well for you right here.

Jsc, I know what the Bible says about the subject.
Greg Carey didn't show me anything there except the reality that he apparently has a VERY poor understanding of Scripture.

There is NO Scriptural support for homosexuality and there obviously is no support to be found for homosexual marriage.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:46 pm

Jsc, homosexual marriage is not be something that ---> I <--- would do.

But as I've said, I think free people should be free to do it if they want to.
Now given the fact that we are NOT free, and that our government is sanctioning marriage, the correct thing to sanction is male/female marriage only, imo.

If a pastor, for example, wants to look at Scripture and then conclude that it seems fine for him to marry a homosexual couple, that is his call to make.

As a pastor, I would not marry a homosexual couple.

In Genesis, we see that God created man and woman to be together - and in their union together, they even become ONE flesh. Genesis 2:20-25.
There is NEVER any indication in any portion of Scripture that God has granted man/man this sort of relationship, and the ability to be ONE flesh together.
And quite to the contrary, there are numerous places where we see that homosexual behavior is very clearly... troubling and detrimental.

Romans 1:1-32 - Paul explains about how people have chosen to push God away, that it has led them to worship idols ---> and how this has led to sexual perversions, most notably homosexuality.

I don't find any Scriptural basis for concluding that two homosexuals can stand before God and make a ONE flesh union.

It's a folly
A farce.

Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:08 pm

Per the bible, I guess it is ok if they get married as long as they don't have sex.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:15 pm

poptart wrote:Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:20 pm

Jsc810 wrote:I honestly want to understand where he's coming from, Biblically speaking. Whatever he cites as support for his position, I will go read. I want to make sure that I'm getting all of it, that's why I'm asking.

Why do you even care how he interprets a book you don't believe in? I swear...some people around here seem to enjoy having the exact same arguments with the exact same people over the exact same issues over and over and over. You're not going to change his mind. He's not going to change yours.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:22 pm

poptart wrote:Now if you want to ask me if a homosexual can be a Christian, it is MY answer that it is certainly possible.

Well, duh. Jaysus himself was roaming the desert and draining ballsacks like they were refreshing bottles of Dasani.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:29 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I swear...some people around here seem to enjoy having the exact same arguments with the exact same people over the exact same issues over and over and over.

Miracle Whip sucks.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:30 pm

Yeah, but not as much as Thousand Island.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:31 pm

I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:36 pm

War Wagon wrote:What words in the constitution grant marriage as a fundamental right?

As mv stated, there's no rights granted anywhere in the Constitution.

And the Constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere, which tends to lean towards the poptart stance that it's none of the Fed's business.

As far as marriage being a "fundamental right," JSC cited the multiple SCOTUS decisions that confirm marriage as a fundamental right.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:31 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.

umm.. sorry to burst ur bubble Indy, but, that salmon you got at walmart? its farm raised and not wild, therefore, you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.

but seriously, next time, get fresh wild norweigan salmon instead, omega 3's cancer fighter. :twisted:

oh, and stay away from mcdonalds, its a cancer trap for your colon. :twisted:

unless you are LTS, and your colon is shot to hell :twisted:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:44 pm

bradhusker wrote:...you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.

Filet-o-fish or anything else from McDonalds is a delicacy for you?
That explains so much.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:54 pm

Martyred wrote:
bradhusker wrote:...you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used smoked gouda instead,
oh well, gotta cut back somewhere I guess.

Filet-o-fish or anything else from McDonalds is a delicacy for you?
That explains so much.

oh really marty? it explains so much for you? this, coming from a guy who eats breakfast and lunch at 7-11.
what the hell do u know about north atlantic cod anyway? :twisted:

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:07 pm

bradhusker wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:I got some fresh salmon at Walmart today.
umm.. sorry to burst ur bubble Indy, but, that salmon you got at walmart? its farm raised and not wild, therefore, you might as well be eating a McDonalds filet-O-fish, yes, I said it, the McDonalds famous filet-O-fish is flaky north atlantic COD, mild and tasty, with a creamy tartar sauce that is to die for, OH, and a freshly steamed and impossibly billowy soft bun, the only drawback on this cullinary work of art as I see it? the processed american cheese, they should have used ~~smoked gouda~~ Tillamook Cheddar instead,

FTFY.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:50 pm

bradhusker wrote:ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.

read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.

WRONG.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:14 pm

mvscal wrote:
bradhusker wrote:ROME started out fine, that is until they let the gays run things, then things got perverted quickly, and Rome started goin downhill fast.

read history much dipshit? torwards the end of rome, gays were fully out in the open, I mean FULL BLOWN, were talking handjobs in the street, sodomy out in the open, sick fags flaunting their openness in front of children, and of course, the open sanctioning of children into their lifestyle.

WRONG.

What?!? The shittiest shit troll in recent memory doesn't have a complete grasp of history? Say it ain't so!

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:26 am

Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:30 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:I fuck small boys in the ass.

Nobody cares.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:50 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.

I see you're still struggling with the phrase "well regulated militia."

Since no one here (or anyone else) seems to be able to explain it, maybe you should crack a book sometime.

Federalist Paper #29 would be a good start... or #2. Several of the people who... wrote the fucking Constitution made the definition pretty clear. You know, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington... they were all quite clear about it.

I guess it's too bad they're all dead, so you can't tell them what they meant, eh?

But fortunately, they did a great deal of writing on the subject -- you should check it out sometime. You could then realize you've been quite wrong this whole time -- not up for debate.

The SCOTUS thinks you're wrong, too.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:32 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Not suprising that the crowd that selectively forgets the part of the 2nd Amendment that goes "in order to form a well-regulated militia can't seem to acknowedge that privileges are protected by the Constitution just as much as rights.

I see you're still struggling with the phrase "well regulated militia."

Since no one here (or anyone else) seems to be able to explain it, maybe you should crack a book sometime.

The phrase is irrelevant. The right of self-defense is the most fundamental right of them all.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:42 am

Jsc, you can see Genesis 18:20-33 through Genesis 19:1-38.
It's God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where people had turned from Him and gone to their own wickedness ---> which led to sexual perversions, and homosexuality was rampant.

Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, also.

These are Old Testament Scriptures, and believers in Christ are not bound by these laws, and the judgements called for are no longer binding, seeing as Christ has come as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin.

But certainly, it is clear that if a person is into homosexuality, he is in an area which is not desirable or beneficial.

I cited Romans 1 (the whole chapter) before, which is in the New Testament.

Even after Christ came as the one-time blood sacrifice for all sin, we are still taught about the perils of homosexuality (and other sexual perversions).

See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

I value it as most important to note the Scripture I posted earlier - Genesis 2:20-25 (you could see Genesis 1:26-28, also).

Genesis 1 and 2 is speaking of God's creation state for mankind (before the fall of Genesis 3) - and it surely involves Man/Woman together as a unit - and even becoming ONE flesh.
I can think about that when I get angry at my wife - that is MY flesh I am angry at.

All of the problems and perversions came to mankind after the event of Genesis 3, which you might read, also.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:47 am

mvscal wrote: The phrase is irrelevant. The right of self-defense is the most fundamental right of them all.

Irrelevant or not, it was clearly defined at the time.

And not once was"sporting/hunting purposes" ever mentioned.

They did however mention that the People (aka "Militia") must have the ability to overcome any domestic standing army, and should have personal arms equivalent to those of any standing army that might be formed.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:12 am

Saddle up, Dins, and don't forget your Depends. :wink:

"Who we fightin', by the way?"

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:59 am

Dinsdale wrote:They did however mention that the People (aka "Militia") must have the ability to overcome any domestic standing army, and should have personal arms equivalent to those of any standing army that might be formed.

I don't know about that but the 2nd amendment is explicit in stating that the People armed are necessary to maintain order. Certainly our inner cities are in desperate need of armed citizens' militias to patrol the streets and keep their neighborhoods safe.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:58 am

Sure, Avi, those milita types are gonna keep us safe from....corporate plutocrats? Radical activist right wing supreme court justices? Sociopathic Hebrews stalking little child Hebrews for at home butchery class? Christo/fascist moronic Tea Baggers?

C'mon..be clear in your ignorant lisping..