Ban on gay marriage 'unconcsitutional'
-
I've read all of his supposed comebacks and insults on the internet. Dude was a clever, funny asshole lol
-
And his parrot may still be alive.
-
So would you like to ban all bad ideas? Who gets to decide what a bad idea is? I think religion is a bad idea, can I ban that too? Luckily it is a matter of public opinion, and it looks like your side is fading away like record players and black and white TV.
So, if it does not affect you, why do you care? It does not affect me directly either, but I am not so wrapped up in outdated ideals that I can tell when something is right or wrong.
What perverted crap are your kids gonna see? Do you think two dudes banging in the butt will be part of their next science class? No need to be so paranoid.
You are going to go out into the forest with your kids and which birds fuck? Weird.
-
which ? At least they would be heterosexual, normal birds,
Why would you WATCH birds get it on, anyways, you idiot?
The feathers would get in the way of seeing anything.
Have you ever even been near a tree in your life?
birdbrain woodpecker.
Watch it, woodpecker, you just used "which" instead of "watch".
Watch your "whiches", learn to "reason" and get which word to use,
and "which" wasn't it. No go call somebody a "exists" again. That very woodypeckerheadish.
-
The judge was probably gay, or has a relative or close friend who is.
That's how liberal judges rule.
Oh, btw,...
http://news.yahoo.com/spain-39-cardinal-says-homosexuality-39-defect-39-135809123.html
-
The judge was probably gay, or has a relative or close friend who is.
That's how liberal judges rule.
Oh, btw,...
http://news.yahoo.com/spain-39-cardinal-says-homosexuality-39-defect-39-135809123.html
In fairness, you have to agree that it isn't "natural" - after all, in terms of evolution the number one priority for existing is to get the next generation to exist, so homosexuality is "unnatural." If we're using that as a basis to make it illegal - or make it illegal for people to get married - I think it's quite pathetic though. There are loads of natural defects that occur, that evolution would say is a bad thing - albinos, short people, fat people, people with genetic illnesses etc. Nobody is saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
It's a ridiculous jump, yes, but so is going from "it's a defect of nature" to "we must stone the gays" from the church or "the gays cannot have the same rights as straights" from the state.
-
Oh god a typo! Noooooo!
A very religious person said something ignorant About homosexuality. Your point?
-
-
Ice Dawg19 said:
Gay marriage = An Extension chord with 2 male ends. It's just a bad idea and quite frankly doesn't work.
I always hear the same liberal shit over and over. "It doesn't affect me, why should I care". That is the problem with this country, nobody cares unless it affects them directly. Technically, I don't want my kids to see this perverted crap. Have to teach my kids about the "bird's and the bee's" by going out into the forest and actually watch the birds and the bees.
Why are you taking your kids to watch gay dudes bang? Because otherwise I don't see how they would be privy to "perverted crap" unless you are taking them down to watch the stuff.
-
albinos, short people, fat people, people with genetic illnesses etc.
***********************************************************
Genetics - people can't help it.
We're talking about behavior. That isn't the same thing.
But libs love to redefine words to try to make some kind of dumbass point.
Look at what logic just posted.
Don't be stupid. Please.
-
oh... so we arent even at the point where you think homosexuality is genetic? Awesome...
Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Cal, you used the word of a rep for an organization that knowingly hid child rapists (homosexual ones at that) to try to prove your point. Do you not see where there would be an issue?
-
I don't think sexuality should really have anything to do with the constitution. But I also don't think gays should be prevented from getting married either.
I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
oh... so we arent even at the point where you think homosexuality is genetic? Awesome...
Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male.
oh... so we arent even at the point where you think homosexuality is genetic? Awesome...
Also, isnt there a study out there that shows homosexuality exists as an offset to a gene that makes the mothers more fertile? The women in the family have a better chance to reproduce and it is offset by a homosexual male.
There is nothing that says it is genetic. It is just perverse.
-
I don't think sexuality should really have anything to do with the constitution. But I also don't think gays should be prevented from getting married either.
I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks.
I don't think sexuality should really have anything to do with the constitution. But I also don't think gays should be prevented from getting married either.
I'd prefer the gov't not recognize my relationship. $400 bucks for tax purposes or whatever? Gee thanks, dicks.
This is how I feel. Government should be out of the marriage business all together. Let people decide if they want to be legally bound to one another. I don't need the federal government to be involved at all.
-
I realize it's hard for some of you guys to understand but natural doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong. Pedophilia is "natura"l because it happens in nature. Same way as sadism or masochism or bestieality or a lot of stuff you may or may not approve of.
If indeed that's the definition you what to use for natural.
WSS
-
I would be on the side that basing our laws solely off of what is "natural" or "normal" in nature are both bad ideas.
-
Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity.
Abnormal is an aberation to the above.
Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor
lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.
-
Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity.
Abnormal is an aberation to the above.
Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor
lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.
Actually, Steve, sorry, but "normal" is generally accepted, dominant activity.
Abnormal is an aberation to the above.
Whether something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. A small meteor
lands in forest? Not normal. Maybe once in a century? aberation.
I think we can agree that homosexuality is not normal - the norm is that you're straight, clearly. But does that mean that anything that isn't 'normal' should be illegal? If most people choose to act in one way, should the other way be illegal? Like, most people in America are Christian of some description - catholic, protestant, mormon, whatever. That's a belief, a way of life, like you said being gay is. Should the minority religions be outlawed? Nobody's forcing you to go to a mosque and kneel before allah, much in the same way that I'd hope nobody is forcing to suck a dick (if they are then perhaps your view is more understandable!)
-
Cal and Chris.
That's my point and the reason I put quotation marks around the word natural. Often people, like somebody here, have used the argument that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural since it happens in nature. Another reason given by some is that people are born that way or that it might be genetic. I'm not making a value judgement I'm just saying that none of those conditions make it right or wrong.. People are born with many different traits that we wouldn't consider proper.
I would say that a case could be easily made that giving perks or benefits two married people of any sex should be unconstitutional since unmarried people are denied those same things.
But I will leave that lawsuit to the people who give more of a shit about it than I do.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login