- This topic has 770 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by rubbieslippers.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM #205048May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM #204927AnonymousGuest
“Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 – 1:56pm.
There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that’s predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)”
People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don’t think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don’t agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a “marriage”. Just because they are in love doesn’t mean they have that right.
May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM #204975AnonymousGuest“Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 – 1:56pm.
There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that’s predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)”
People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don’t think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don’t agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a “marriage”. Just because they are in love doesn’t mean they have that right.
May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM #205005AnonymousGuest“Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 – 1:56pm.
There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that’s predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)”
People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don’t think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don’t agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a “marriage”. Just because they are in love doesn’t mean they have that right.
May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM #205027AnonymousGuest“Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 – 1:56pm.
There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that’s predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)”
People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don’t think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don’t agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a “marriage”. Just because they are in love doesn’t mean they have that right.
May 15, 2008 at 2:08 PM #205058AnonymousGuest“Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 – 1:56pm.
There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that’s predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)”
People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don’t think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don’t agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a “marriage”. Just because they are in love doesn’t mean they have that right.
May 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM #204932scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM #204981scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM #205010scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM #205032scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:09 PM #205064scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM #204937scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull out of this recession! Alternatively, i would be in favor of marriage only for breeders, non-breeding couples of any gender don’t get to marry, uness they adopt, also excluded would be any heterosexual couples who intend to have non-breeding intercourse, including but not limited to anal or oral sex. A marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, but not just any kinda deviant man and woman, only a man and a woman who are committed to a non-onanistic lifestyle where seed is not dispersed willy nilly, but is placed only where it was intended to be placed at the appropriate time where it can be used for its intended purpose; the breeding of more breeders. Only kidding.
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM #204983scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull out of this recession! Alternatively, i would be in favor of marriage only for breeders, non-breeding couples of any gender don’t get to marry, uness they adopt, also excluded would be any heterosexual couples who intend to have non-breeding intercourse, including but not limited to anal or oral sex. A marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, but not just any kinda deviant man and woman, only a man and a woman who are committed to a non-onanistic lifestyle where seed is not dispersed willy nilly, but is placed only where it was intended to be placed at the appropriate time where it can be used for its intended purpose; the breeding of more breeders. Only kidding.
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM #205015scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull out of this recession! Alternatively, i would be in favor of marriage only for breeders, non-breeding couples of any gender don’t get to marry, uness they adopt, also excluded would be any heterosexual couples who intend to have non-breeding intercourse, including but not limited to anal or oral sex. A marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, but not just any kinda deviant man and woman, only a man and a woman who are committed to a non-onanistic lifestyle where seed is not dispersed willy nilly, but is placed only where it was intended to be placed at the appropriate time where it can be used for its intended purpose; the breeding of more breeders. Only kidding.
Drink Heavily.
May 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM #205037scaredyclassicParticipantNot so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping ‘problems”. Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn’t want her boys to think “gay marriage” is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn’t really be seen as ‘consenting” to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as “consensual”. On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you’d probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the “economy”, we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull out of this recession! Alternatively, i would be in favor of marriage only for breeders, non-breeding couples of any gender don’t get to marry, uness they adopt, also excluded would be any heterosexual couples who intend to have non-breeding intercourse, including but not limited to anal or oral sex. A marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, but not just any kinda deviant man and woman, only a man and a woman who are committed to a non-onanistic lifestyle where seed is not dispersed willy nilly, but is placed only where it was intended to be placed at the appropriate time where it can be used for its intended purpose; the breeding of more breeders. Only kidding.
Drink Heavily.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.