Same *** Marriage Is a Right

[Punk Hazard]

Bigot: : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

It seems you fit right in the definition, what a hypocrite.

My dislike of you and your opinion is anything but unfair.

 

[King Kendrick]

Because instead of fixing existing problems with marriage for heterosexual couples. They allow gays to marry in an attempt to keep marriage alive. It was probably their plan all along to destroy anything that makes up the nuclear family. I don't support a perverted propaganda that is trying to twist and confuse everything traditional.

?? I dont even understand what you're trying to say half the times you type something . Are you trying to imply the chief justice along with the other 8 justices are perverted propagandists for allowing same *** marriage . And are secretly trying to undermine everything traditional ???

 

[King Kendrick]

Only the American constitution recognizes same *** marriage to be right. Majority of the world does not, and it hopefully continues to oppose it with death penalty upon this practice.

Also, how is this legalized? Isn't Congress a republican government branch that makes and veto laws? They should have vetoed the Supreme Court for this.

Liberalism is getting out of control. Marriage is always man and woman and it must/and should remain this way to continue the reproduction and tradition.

Wrong marriage is a word made by society . It can be changed whenever we want to be .

And if were talking tradition ... Same-*** marital practices and rituals were very recognized in Mesopotamia . The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.

Among the Romans, there were instances of same-*** marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus, who both supposedly married a man .

 

[Yubel]

?? I dont even understand what you're trying to say half the times you type something . Are you trying to imply the chief justice along with the other 8 justices are perverted propagandists for allowing same *** marriage . And are secretly trying to undermine everything traditional ???

Of course, why else would they bypass the constitution and go out of their way to enforce this?

 

[Angelic.]

thats good. ill enjoy listening to talk radio hosts tonight after these decisions. so butthurt :snick:

 

[ComplexCity]

Meh, it's all just a hypocrisy,

Whatever pleases the people the most, whatever satisfies their needs will be made right by bending all logics and all morals because people can never be wrong and they can never have faults in their characters, its the world and system thats against these poor ****ing retarded majority of the population, they just support each other's hypocrisy and tell each other how awesome those collective stupid are.

Ok rant over now do I think thats an equal right? I don't care tbh, you make decisions you suffer the consequences. Personally I find it disgusting and those people need help but if they aren't forcing anything on anyone and don't tell others what they should do(i.e support this) I say we let them do whatever the **** they want.

Basically yes, let them marry, it ain't hurting no one.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[ComplexCity]

Wrong marriage is a word made by society . It can be changed whenever we want to be .

And if were talking tradition ... Same-*** marital practices and rituals were very recognized in Mesopotamia . The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.

Among the Romans, there were instances of same-*** marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus, who both supposedly married a man .

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in taboos

 

[slimreaper]

how can you say it is none of your concern and then tell people not to fly the confederate flag? If i find homosexuality offensive, why are my opinions not considered by the government?

 

[Bronze]

Wrong marriage is a word made by society . It can be changed whenever we want to be .

Marriage is made by religion.

And if were talking tradition ... Same-*** marital practices and rituals were very recognized in Mesopotamia . The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.

Not all traditions are the same.

Among the Romans, there were instances of same-*** marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus, who both supposedly married a man .

Not all traditions are the same.

If youve seen his other threads you'd understand how much of a bigot he is .

...

 

[ComplexCity]

how can you say it is none of your concern and then tell people not to fly the confederate flag? If i find homosexuality offensive, why are my opinions not considered by the government?

Called America buddy

 

[Aim64C]

Let's legalize polygamy and incest then. Let's stop dancing around this and choosing one or two taboos to vindicate, let's throw away the concept of taboos entirely.

From a principled standpoint, I'm more Libertarian.

If six people want to shack up together in a house and sign various contracts sorting out their powers of attorney and other such things... that's their business. The government shouldn't try to set up special tax statuses for people based upon who they live with or whatnot and where for, and it shouldn't try to get involved with who is allowed to knock up who (or to fornicate with whom) among consenting adults.

While distasteful - if people want to engage in bestiality - I do not believe it is practical policy to grant animals legal rights and protections under the law, and they are simply choosing what to do with their property (though from a systemic standpoint - laws such as that should be left to the states - I'm simply stating what I would suggest my state's standpoint should be).

Obviously, since children are not consenting adults, then it would be a violation of the law to engage in *** with someone who is not able to give legal consent.

Beyond that - the Government should stay the hell out of it. If a church or community wants to recognize a couple... or... trio... or whatever as married, that is their business.

Of course - I also don't believe we should have a personal income tax that is used to try and incentivize marriage and other such things by the nation.

I may not -approve- of homosexuality, but that does not mean I believe it is the government's place to get involved in marriage or sexual relationships.

Of course, the fact that I can separate my personal views of right and wrong from what are correct and incorrect systemic policy makes me an unusual person. Most people simply base their views of laws and governing policy on what their personal views of right and wrong are.

 

[slimreaper]

Called America buddy

right and homosexuality is none of my business. What flag I should be able to buy and fly wherever I want should be none of your business

 

[ComplexCity]

right and homosexuality is none of my business. What flag I should be able to buy and fly wherever I want should be none of your business

Was agreeing with you, no need to be feral kitten.

 

[ComplexCity]

From a principled standpoint, I'm more Libertarian.

If six people want to shack up together in a house and sign various contracts sorting out their powers of attorney and other such things... that's their business. The government shouldn't try to set up special tax statuses for people based upon who they live with or whatnot and where for, and it shouldn't try to get involved with who is allowed to knock up who (or to fornicate with whom) among consenting adults.

While distasteful - if people want to engage in bestiality - I do not believe it is practical policy to grant animals legal rights and protections under the law, and they are simply choosing what to do with their property (though from a systemic standpoint - laws such as that should be left to the states - I'm simply stating what I would suggest my state's standpoint should be).

Obviously, since children are not consenting adults, then it would be a violation of the law to engage in *** with someone who is not able to give legal consent.

Beyond that - the Government should stay the hell out of it. If a church or community wants to recognize a couple... or... trio... or whatever as married, that is their business.

Of course - I also don't believe we should have a personal income tax that is used to try and incentivize marriage and other such things by the nation.

I may not -approve- of homosexuality, but that does not mean I believe it is the government's place to get involved in marriage or sexual relationships.

Of course, the fact that I can separate my personal views of right and wrong from what are correct and incorrect systemic policy makes me an unusual person. Most people simply base their views of laws and governing policy on what their personal views of right and wrong are.

There was news report about monkeys or chimps about them being treated with rights like humans. I forgot which group it was. look it up

 

[slimreaper]

Was agreeing with you, no need to be feral kitten.

my bad. Intent is sometimes hard to convey in text

 

[Punk Hazard]

If youve seen his other threads you'd understand how much of a bigot he is .

Are you calling me or Kagetora a bigot?

 

[King Kendrick]

Are you calling me or Kagetora a bigot?

Kagetora .

 

[Power Bottom]

yayyyyyyyyyyyyy <3

I am happy for the LGBT community

 

[Sennin of Logic]

From a principled standpoint, I'm more Libertarian.

If six people want to shack up together in a house and sign various contracts sorting out their powers of attorney and other such things... that's their business. The government shouldn't try to set up special tax statuses for people based upon who they live with or whatnot and where for, and it shouldn't try to get involved with who is allowed to knock up who (or to fornicate with whom) among consenting adults.

While distasteful - if people want to engage in bestiality - I do not believe it is practical policy to grant animals legal rights and protections under the law, and they are simply choosing what to do with their property (though from a systemic standpoint - laws such as that should be left to the states - I'm simply stating what I would suggest my state's standpoint should be).

Obviously, since children are not consenting adults, then it would be a violation of the law to engage in *** with someone who is not able to give legal consent.

Beyond that - the Government should stay the hell out of it. If a church or community wants to recognize a couple... or... trio... or whatever as married, that is their business.

Of course - I also don't believe we should have a personal income tax that is used to try and incentivize marriage and other such things by the nation.

I may not -approve- of homosexuality, but that does not mean I believe it is the government's place to get involved in marriage or sexual relationships.

Of course, the fact that I can separate my personal views of right and wrong from what are correct and incorrect systemic policy makes me an unusual person. Most people simply base their views of laws and governing policy on what their personal views of right and wrong are.

I'm being half-sarcastic, half-serious. My mentality is this: It's fairly obvious that the pro homosexual movements aren't movements that support actual removal of taboos in general, but simply the taboos that they currently enjoy, while also holding on to what they view as taboos. Equality is just a disposable tool to them. The argument that's the main theme of homosexuality is "who are you telling us who and who we can't marry?"

In the legal sense, they've won. Bravo, so that's the mentality that's won, so let's take that mentality to its natural conclusion and support all taboos that don't involve a non-consensual harm to people. If they want to disregard some traditional parts of marriage, and keep some (the love of 2 individuals), then let's take that out as well. Let's expand marriage for whoever wants it, regardless if some people (including gays), find it disgusting, because the theme that's won out is that opinion of those that dislike something does not matter, so the definitions should be expanded for whoever wants that title, even if it's fundamentally changed. Let's not continue hypocrisy.

 

[00Rinne]

The world is n judgement! Prime Creator didn't create man and man. Thanx to the government and all of there pushin this repugnant garbage on people daily with music, celebs n movies, pheromones in the food, magazines,t.v shows and everything else. It makes people complacent an if you don't go with the crowd you called all kind of names because it's not what you like.

It's just a giant distraction from more important things.

But everyone has their own opinion and their own way of living weather liked or disliked for it.