Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:23 pm
That dude sounds like a cocksucker.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:37 pm
Typical of the U & L.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:40 pm
I have you in my 2007 Death Pool. Die already.Jsc810 wrote:Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.
Yes, it is. Die, you cum gurgling faggot, die!Jsc810 wrote:The First Amendment is a wonderful thing.
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:40 pm
uh oh, now you've done it..Goober McTuber wrote:Typical of the U & L.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:47 am
No suprise to see mvsidiot showing his ignorance of the issues involved.mvscal wrote:No real surprise to see some sub-moronic, polesmoking queerbait knocking down strawmen.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:04 am
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.Jsc810 wrote:
Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.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."
The First Amendment is a wonderful thing.
WAR the law in its majesty
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:42 am
What point? What lack of logic?Jsc810 wrote: Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (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.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:21 am
You're right. The fallacy that marriages should only be for hetero couples for the purpose of children is rediculous.War Wagon wrote:What point? What lack of logic?Jsc810 wrote: Rack this guy for making his point while making fun of "social conservatives" and their (lack of) logic.
The fallacy of that arguement is so astoundingly ridiculous, it borders on the sublime.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:26 pm
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.88 wrote: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).
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:35 pm
rank these gays
2, 1, 3
2, 1, 3
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:41 pm
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.
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.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:52 pm
Yeah, I didn’t really think you’d go along with it.Derron wrote:Not eveh the most white bread right wing Bible thumping speed taking, ass fucking whore monger could go along with that idea.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:39 pm
But it is how you roll I am sure.Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, I didn’t really think you’d go along with it.Derron wrote:Not eveh the most white bread right wing Bible thumping speed taking, ass fucking whore monger could go along with that idea.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:49 pm
Not really, Derron, I’m for less government.
And less Derron.
And less Derron.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:41 pm
poptart wrote:rank these gays
1,2
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:47 pm
Goober McTuber wrote:You suck.Derron wrote:I am rubber, you're glue.Goober McTuber wrote: I know you are but what am I?
Epic stuff, guys... epic.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:08 pm
Die, you cum gurgling faggot, die!ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:You suck.Derron wrote: I am rubber, you're glue.
Epic stuff, guys... epic.
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:59 pm
Just joining in the fun with changing quotes stuffGoober McTuber wrote:I've never encountered a cock that I wouldn't suck...it's true!ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Goober McTuber wrote: You suck.
Epic stuff, guys... epic.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:59 pm
Soley? No, but procreation is right in the Wash opinion (and others) as a reason to uphold the ban.88 wrote: When did social conservatives ever claim that marriage exists "solely for the purpose of procreation"?
But then you knew that because you read it before shooting off your piehole right?
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:05 am
Where the fuck did you come from ??Moving Sale wrote:Soley? No, but procreation is right in the Wash opinion (and others) as a reason to uphold the ban.88 wrote: When did social conservatives ever claim that marriage exists "solely for the purpose of procreation"?
But then you knew that because you read it before shooting off your piehole right?
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
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:13 am
Court.Derron wrote: Where the fuck did you come from ??
I also posted about Global Warming today.The minute somebody posts about fags and butt fucking you climb out of the basement and hit the keyboard.
Care to read anything into that?
Of course you do.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:00 am
Fuck that noise.Jsc810 wrote: 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.
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:30 am
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.
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:50 am
Not to the person of their own choice like you have.poptart wrote:There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:50 am
WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.War Wagon wrote:Fuck that noise.Jsc810 wrote: 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.
Homesexuality or lesbianism or fucking sheep is just plain wrong. It's wrong, man.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:08 am
The problem is that you are a spoiled baby.Diego in Seattle wrote:Not to the person of their own choice like you have.poptart wrote:There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.
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.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:25 am
What issues?Diego in Seattle wrote: WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:26 pm
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).poptart wrote:The problem is that you are a spoiled baby.Diego in Seattle wrote:Not to the person of their own choice like you have.poptart wrote:There is NO discrimination because marriage is available to all adults.
When did people start thinking that they should be entitled to do whatever the hell they want to do ... ?
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.There is a structure that society has set in place.
Rules and standards, in all different areas, that they have decided is good.
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])?Marriage as man-woman is good.
It is correct.
It is proper.
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?It is anatomically OBVIOUS.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:31 pm
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.War Wagon wrote:What issues?Diego in Seattle wrote: WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.
There is no issue.
Homosexuality = abomination.
What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?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.
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?
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:52 pm
ftfyWar Wagon wrote: 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.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:44 pm
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.
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:00 pm
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?
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:03 pm
Because no man deserves that level of punishment ?Headhunter wrote: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?
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:14 pm
what rights under the Constitution aren't being afforded to them, douche?Diego in Seattle wrote: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.War Wagon wrote:What issues?Diego in Seattle wrote: WW once again shows his ignorance of the issues involved.
There is no issue.
Homosexuality = abomination.
What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?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.
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?
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:15 pm
Jsc810 wrote: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?
After 7+ years on these boards that's still in question?you're a sick fuck.
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.
Re: rack these gays
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:15 am
Lots of them, dumbfuck.titlover wrote:what rights under the Constitution aren't being afforded to them, douche?Diego in Seattle wrote: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.War Wagon wrote: What issues?
There is no issue.
Homosexuality = abomination.
What's the problem with legitamizing something that has no effect on others so that they have the same freedoms as everyone else?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.
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?
Not to mention that while you can visit your beloved in the ICU, gays & lesbians can't.