T1B

Jsc810 wrote:The children that died due to withheld medical treatment had life.

An embryo, zygote, and fetus have potential life.

I understand that you don't agree, but that is my reasoning.

So are you saying that in the example of a pregnant woman being murdered the perp should only be charged with a single count of murder then?

Jsc wrote:Talking snakes? Really?

It's not a talking snake.
You're wrong -- and we've seen a whole lot of that.

Do you know who the serpent is?
He knows you better than you know yourself.

Jsc wrote:Regarding same sex marriage, you've already lost in terms of the law. And like slavery and other issues previously, you will lose Biblically as well. Churches are already performing such marriages, and you will see more and more do so. Enjoy living in the fringe.

The law will decide what the law will.
I'm just fine with it.

"Churches" will do what churches will do.
So be it.

Know that the first century Church was the epitome of... fringe.
They prevailed against phenomenal persecution and phenomenal opposition.

The Church wins.
Know it.

Matthew 16:16-18
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Felix wrote:so your entire understanding of a gay marriage is that sex is at the central core is that right?

In most cases, sex is a central element of marriage, yes.

poptart wrote: In most cases, sex is a central element of marriage, yes.

my wife is my best friend, my most trusted confidant, the person I would sacrifice everything I have for.....the one person on this earth I love more than myself.....when we got married, I knew I was never going to have my own children with her.....but she was worth it.....so I can say that sex for procreative purposes was NEVER a consideration why I married her......do you think some part of my life is unfulfilled?

I'm sorry you and your lot are so focused on the sexual aspect of marriage......that makes me kind of sad for you.....

schmick wrote:
Im as atheist as it comes and I have no problem hanging out with the different races but interracial breeding should be a capital offense.

oh so "hanging out" with them is okay, it's just that you've decreed that a selective group of people have no right to love who they want, is that what you're saying? while I know you may think you're "tolerant", trust me when I tell you, you're not prejudiced, you're a bigot....

do you have a lot of ethnic friends? I'll take a wild stab and say no.....

Felix wrote:I'm sorry you and your lot are so focused on the sexual aspect of marriage......that makes me kind of sad for you.....

:?


Dearest Felix,

Have you ever seen what goes on at say... a Gay Pride Event?

Any focus on the sexual aspect of man/man luv there??


Just truly hard to believe some of the strange things that get posted here.



If anything Felix, it is the CHRISTERS who focus a lot more (a LOT, LOT) on the "values" you expressed about you and your wife.

Tell your homo gang to get it's act together.

poptart wrote:

Felix wrote:I'm sorry you and your lot are so focused on the sexual aspect of marriage......that makes me kind of sad for you.....

:?


Dearest Felix,

Have you ever seen what goes on at say... a Gay Pride Event?

Any focus on the sexual aspect of man/man luv there??


Just truly hard to believe some of the strange things that get posted here.



If anything Felix, it is the CHRISTERS who focus a lot more (a LOT, LOT) on the "values" you expressed about you and your wife.

Tell your homo gang to get it's act together.

^^^^ The stupidity is strong in that one.

You're making a judgment on what same-sex marriages are about based on what you saw happen at a parade (& how the fuck would you know what goes on at a pride parade in the first place?)? That's like saying "I drove by a few adult bookstores, so that must be what hetero relationships are all about."

There's a term for what you posted....it's called prejudice.

Diego wrote:You're making a judgment on what same-sex marriages are about based on what you saw happen at a parade (& how the fuck would you know what goes on at a pride parade in the first place?)

It's always on the news, isn't it?

If the homosexual community wants to be known as something other than freakishly sexualized, then why is it that they so very often go far out of their way to present themselves as outwardly and provocatively sexual?

Don't act like that isn't the reality.

Felix wrote:...do you think some part of my life is unfulfilled?

Of course. You have no children and never will.

poptart wrote:
Dearest Felix,

Have you ever seen what goes on at say... a Gay Pride Event?

yeah I've seen it, what of it? is that what you think represents the majority of gay people? does the Klu Klux Klan, the Army of God blowing up abortion clinics and the westboro babtist church picketing soldiers funerals represent christians?

If anything Felix, it is the CHRISTERS who focus a lot more (a LOT, LOT) on the "values" you expressed about you and your wife.

no you said sex was the central core of christian marriage, I told you it shouldn't, now you say that what I posted is really what you meant to say......you're either confused, or not sure what a marriage should be.....so which is it

Tell your homo gang to get it's act together.

so because I prefer to let people love who they want to love, I'm now part of some cabal pushing through some homosexual agenda? tell you what, as soon as you can offer me substantive evidence that a pair of gay guys getting married in whatever state is somehow adversely affecting you, I'll listen to what you have to say......

as one who claims to be christian, you've displayed a most unchristian like intolerance for those that differ from you.....maybe you should reread your bible

the first passage I'd suggest would be

John 15:12 “This is My commandment: that ye love one another, as I have loved you.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:...do you think some part of my life is unfulfilled?

Of course. You have no children and never will.

and of course your wrong.....I have two step sons that I couldn't love anymore if they were my own blood....but look, if you want to judge a life fulfilled by measuring it based on the number of offspring, I'd think you'd be down with lequisha spitting out lots of kids.....

Felix wrote:John 15:12 “This is My commandment: that ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Go and sin no more.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:...do you think some part of my life is unfulfilled?

Of course. You have no children and never will.

Wrong answer, dumbshit.

6 pages of debate still shows faggotry to be the hottest topic in here. Amazing how you tards can keep this going ..go for 12 pages.

Felix wrote:you said sex was the central core of christian marriage

I didn't.


In most cases, sex is a central element of marriage

- poptart



Don't pretend that the "Gay Pride" homosexuals are some fringe element.
For decades now, it has been one of the most prominent and consistent ways the homosexual community has chosen to present itself to the rest of us.

They've taken MANY opportunities to get all up in everyone's face about their sexuality.

They've WANTED to flaunt it.
Over and over and over...


Don't act as if they homo community just wants to make nice families and be nice neighbors.

They've ALWAYS wanted to freak it up.

Stop lying.

Felix wrote:you've displayed a most unchristian like intolerance for those that differ from you.

The homosexual community displays a most disturbing intolerance for marriage.

They deny biology and crap all over decency.
They attempt to bully their way to an obliteration of the clear and obvious marriage standard which has rightfully been understood for thousands of years.

You're a very confused individual.

You gloss right over the fact that they've needed to entirely remake "marriage" meaning in order to attain their "right."

You're dishonest -- and blatantly so.

poptart wrote: The homosexual community displays a most disturbing intolerance for marriage.

really, what is this "intolerance" you're referring to?

They deny biology and crap all over decency.

you're supposing facts not in evidence, and decreeing that your morality is applicable to everyone.....who gave you the right to determine what's decent and what's not?

They attempt to bully their way to an obliteration of the clear and obvious marriage standard which has rightfully been understood for thousands of years.

so let me see if I get this.....you think homosexuals are trying to do away with conventional marriage? look, take care of yourself and those you love, and just let people love who they want to love....again, provide me evidence that this harms you in some way....

You're a very confused individual.

really, what am I confused about? I'm relatively certain that I don't give two rat fucks what two gay people do or don't do with each other, I believe that everyone should be afforded the right to love who they want, and I know that homophobes like you are going to continue to spew this sort of drivel out, so there's nothing I can do or say that will change your hatred of homosexuals.....so what is it I'm confused about?

Felix wrote:so let me see if I get this.....you think homosexuals are trying to do away with conventional marriage?

I think?

Have you actually thought about any of this?

Seems as if you're just making things up as you go along.


Prior to the circus we currently see, marriage always involved male/female.

The anus crew demands we abolish this standard.

Yes, of COURSE they want to do away with conventional marriage, because they are insisting the normal standard be trashed.


Don't you have some golf slacks to go buy? :)

poptart wrote:

Felix wrote:so let me see if I get this.....you think homosexuals are trying to do away with conventional marriage?

I think?

Have you actually thought about any of this?

Seems as if you're just making things up as you go along.


Prior to the circus we currently see, marriage always involved male/female.

The anus crew demands we abolish this standard.

Yes, of COURSE they want to do away with conventional marriage, because they are insisting the normal standard be trashed.


Don't you have some golf slacks to go buy? :)

Engrish not you language, grasshoppa?

Doing away with something means it's no longer allowed. Please provide links to where those advocating same-sex marriage advocates want to ban heteros from marrying, dumbshit.

What they advocate is simply allowing those who choose to marry someone of the same gender to have the same rights & privileges. That would have absolutely NO EFFECT on those who choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. But by all means, continue KYOA by bleating that "marriage will be destroyed" by allowing others the same rights & privileges you enjoy.

This isn't the first time we've seen a group of people blame gays & lesbians for their own problems. That other group also felt that gays & lesbians were a menace to society. Thankfully they were defeated in 1945....

poptart wrote:Don't act as if they homo community just wants to make nice families and be nice neighbors.

Funny, my parents had a gay couple next door. Best neighbors they ever had. Not only were they not doing anal in the back yard, but they kept the house and yard immaculate. They lived there for 15 years and moved. It wasn't a big deal.

Jsc810 wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I got some really nice shirts and a few pairs of pants.

Village People Vito gets a rack.

BSmack wrote:Village People Vito gets a rack.

Yeah, he does, but it's where he would put the rack that is more than a bit unsettling.

It explains why he not only got racked, but got whacked.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

poptart wrote:

Felix wrote:so let me see if I get this.....you think homosexuals are trying to do away with conventional marriage?

I think?

Have you actually thought about any of this?

Seems as if you're just making things up as you go along.


Prior to the circus we currently see, marriage always involved male/female.

The anus crew demands we abolish this standard.

Yes, of COURSE they want to do away with conventional marriage, because they are insisting the normal standard be trashed.


Don't you have some golf slacks to go buy? :)

Engrish not you language, grasshoppa?

Doing away with something means it's no longer allowed. Please provide links to where those advocating same-sex marriage advocates want to ban heteros from marrying, dumbshit.

What they advocate is simply allowing those who choose to marry someone of the same gender to have the same rights & privileges. That would have absolutely NO EFFECT on those who choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. But by all means, continue KYOA by bleating that "marriage will be destroyed" by allowing others the same rights & privileges you enjoy.

This isn't the first time we've seen a group of people blame gays & lesbians for their own problems. That other group also felt that gays & lesbians were a menace to society. Thankfully they were defeated in 1945....

An individual marriage does not occur in a vacuum.

There is a community standard -- and that is why (supposedly) a government has always regulated it.


I love how people always predictably throw out these "I knew a homo couple and they were the SWEETEST people..." takes, all the while brushing away decades of "GAY PRIDE" representation.

All these years, the community could have chosen a different way to show itself to the rest of us.
They could have showed us a "Hey, please accept us. We want to be good people and good neighbors" model -- and yet they showed us what they are really all about.

They've showed us the truth... repeatedly.


I deal in reality.

poptart wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

poptart wrote: I think?

Have you actually thought about any of this?

Seems as if you're just making things up as you go along.


Prior to the circus we currently see, marriage always involved male/female.

The anus crew demands we abolish this standard.

Yes, of COURSE they want to do away with conventional marriage, because they are insisting the normal standard be trashed.


Don't you have some golf slacks to go buy? :)

Engrish not you language, grasshoppa?

Doing away with something means it's no longer allowed. Please provide links to where those advocating same-sex marriage advocates want to ban heteros from marrying, dumbshit.

What they advocate is simply allowing those who choose to marry someone of the same gender to have the same rights & privileges. That would have absolutely NO EFFECT on those who choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. But by all means, continue KYOA by bleating that "marriage will be destroyed" by allowing others the same rights & privileges you enjoy.

This isn't the first time we've seen a group of people blame gays & lesbians for their own problems. That other group also felt that gays & lesbians were a menace to society. Thankfully they were defeated in 1945....

An individual marriage does not occur in a vacuum.

There is a community standard -- and that is why (supposedly) a government has always regulated it.


I love how people always predictably throw out these "I knew a homo couple and they were the SWEETEST people..." takes, all the while brushing away decades of "GAY PRIDE" representation.

All these years, the community could have chosen a different way to show itself to the rest of us.
They could have showed us a "Hey, please accept us. We want to be good people and good neighbors" model -- and yet they showed us what they are really all about.

They've showed us the truth... repeatedly.


I deal in reality.

I laughed.

poptart wrote:The homosexual community displays a most disturbing intolerance for marriage.

They deny biology and crap all over decency.

Biology? Homosexuality has been a part of our biology since the dawn of man. It's not some fad that started with WHAM in the 80s. It's even been observed amongst animals. That it only exists amongst a minority is irrelevant. All humans engage in some behavior that puts them in a minority.

Fact is, there's very little we understand about it. For all we know, it could be nature's mechanism for something else, like combating overpopulation. Face it, just because we can procreate, doesn't mean everybody needs to. Humans grow in number, but the size of our home stays the same. Hell, China had to tell people to stop fucking. If anything, you should be thanking homos for helping thin the herd a little bit. Because, really, what we need is a few hundred million more schmicks running around.

I can accept the 5% of humanity that are gay, but inevitably, this debate (led by by Jsc) devolves into the concept of legalizing gay marriage, which is a non starter.

Homosexuality is a birth defect... a disease. Parents don't have children hoping they are born with muscular dystrophy.

The bottom line is that most states have voted against diseases being celebrated... only to see the Fed try to overturn the will of those states to appease twats like Jsc.

So, you can't please everyone. Get the fuck over it, majority rules.

schmick wrote:
I have a lot of friends that are non whites.
I just feel that blondes should only procreate with blondes, brunettes should only procreate with brunettes, red heads should only procreate with red heads, darkies should only procreate with darkies, blacks should only procreate with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, asians with asians and so on. No cross breeding

LOL. Didn't do too well in biology, did you?

How do you think this happened?

Mgo, marriage did not arise and continue on through human history out of a societal need (or strong wish) to regulate male/male relationships.

For obvious reasons (biological prominent among them), it has existed as an institution because there has been a need (or strong wish) to regulate male/female relationships -- so as to keep family, children, widows, etc. protected as much as possible.

Yes, because in man/woman relationship, in principle, procreation is possible.


The fact that we are at a point in our history as a country where we are regulating male/male relationships is indication to me that we have gone very far off the rails.

It's into cuckoo land now.

[quote="poptart"]Mgo, marriage did not arise and continue on through human history out of a societal need (or strong wish) to regulate male/male relationships.

For obvious reasons (biological prominent among them), it has existed as an institution because there has been a need (or strong wish) to regulate male/female relationships -- so as to keep family, children, widows, etc. protected as much as possible.

Yes, because in man/woman relationship, in principle, procreation is possible./quote]

Using your logic, those unable to procreate (infertile couples, seniors) should not have the ability to marry. Why haven't you thumpers been campaigning for this?

War Wagon wrote:I can accept the 5% of humanity that are gay, but inevitably, this debate (led by by Jsc) devolves into the concept of legalizing gay marriage, which is a non starter.

Homosexuality is a birth defect... a disease. Parents don't have children hoping they are born with muscular dystrophy.

The bottom line is that most states have voted against diseases being celebrated... only to see the Fed try to overturn the will of those states to appease twats like Jsc.

So, you can't please everyone. Get the fuck over it, majority rules.

So in your book people's rights & privileges should be decided by voter popularity.

You've now justified keeping slavery because it was popular. Congratulations on sinking to a new low in dumbfuckery.

1) Learn what the term in principle means.

2) As I explained previously, marriage has always been available to all. No denial of rights or privileges has been taking place. I do believe that marriage is best defined according to the will of the people of the individual state.

poptart wrote:As I explained previously, marriage has always been available to all. No denial of rights or privileges has been taking place. I do believe that marriage is best defined according to the will of the people of the individual state.

Marriage is not available to all if all do not have the legal ability to marry the consenting adult of their own choice. What you suggest is nothing more than separate but equal. And SCOTUS has made it clear where the Constitution stands on that bullshit.

War Wagon wrote:If you get a chance, visit the SAC museum.

~swoon~

Sincerely,

Screwball

poptart wrote:The fact that we are at a point in our history as a country where we are regulating male/male relationships is indication to me that we have gone very far off the rails.

Purse-swinging nonsense. People said the same stuff about abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, etc, and many other movements throughout our history, large and small. But homo marriage is going to be the straw that finally breaks this country's back? Okay.

You keep bringing up this point about the way things have always been. Who gives a shit? People evolve, intelligence evolves, societies evolve, laws change and evolve. Our country's history is defined by change, not stagnation. There will come a day where marriage as we have known it will represent but the tiniest fraction of our timeline. This argument of "something shouldn't change because we've gone this long without change" is a bunk, nonsensical argument.

And I blame you people. The Bible is an extremely dangerous text. It discourages independent thought, which stunts intellectual development. You can stay stuck in the mud all you want, while everyone else passes you by. These aren't unique times. This is how things have always been, and will continue to be.

mvscal wrote:It's time to face facts, tiny. Not only do you need to stand on a phone book to suck a dick, you are also a complete idiot as evidenced by the fact that you seem to believe that you have gleaned some meaningful information from a google search of largest employers.

If you would pull the black cock out of your ass long enough to get some blood rushing to your brain you would realize that the bottom ten employers is not the place to look for meaningful info on your shit economy.

Yes, dumbfuck...finance. TD Ameritrade, Berkshire Hathaway, Mutual of Omaha and First National of Nebraska (the largest private bank in the country) etc. The FIRE sector accounts for 9% of the employment in Omaha. It was also one of a small handful of cities in the country to experience a net increase in jobs during this ongoing economic depression.

You washed out of military, california AND texass and now you have to go home to fucking Nebraska to die. Fuck off you stupid fucking racist pig.

Mikey wrote:How do you think this happened?

Somebody failed art class?

Jsc810 wrote:Both of you lack an understanding of the Constitution.

A state cannot decide by "majority rule" or "the will of the people" to deny constitutional rights.

Yes, marriage has been recognized as a right by the SCOTUS in three cases. And no matter by how much of a majority it passes by, a law or a state constitutional amendment that prohibits the exercise of that right to a segment of our citizens is going to be found unconstitutional.

So instead of God, you worship the current 9 members of the SCOTUS, or at least the 5 whom voted your way. There's that pesky "majority rule" thingy again. 5-4 and you proclaim it like Moses descending the mount with two stone tablets engraved with the modern version of the Ten Commandments.

But what if in the future, a new SCOTUS rules differently, as in, their interpretation of sacred constitutional rights doesn't jive with a perverted agenda?

What then? You don't want to even consider that.

Meanwhile, states rights get trampled and that whole concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people is just a catch phrase that means nothing because a small group of appointed jurists can overrule the majority of millions of voters and over half of the 50 states.

Oh well, you can say, at least we're not the Ukraine.

War Wagon wrote:the Ukraine.

It's near the Russia, right? Its capital is the Kiev? It's on the the Black Sea?

I know several Ukrainians, and that's a sure-fire way to get their eyes rolling.

Dinsdale wrote:

War Wagon wrote:the Ukraine.

It's near the Russia, right? Its capital is the Kiev? It's on the the Black Sea?

I know several Ukrainians, and that's a sure-fire way to get their eyes rolling.

That's easy for you to say, being from...


...the U&L.

:o

The the U&L.

How's life in the Canada?

Dinsdale wrote:I know several Ukrainians...

from your days as a porn star, no doubt.