The new hatemongers

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by timpage

Man, this is such a ridiculous post from you. Most gays are not vulgar, arrogant or self-absorbed, at least not in any sort of way that separates them from heterosexuals. I'm sorry, but you were logged on to a whore board that has a girl shoving a dildo into her cooch up in the right hand corner of the screen over and over....and you typed this bullshit? Please.

If you want to take up for the gay life style that's fine. But the arrogance and vulgarity of gays in general is displayed in footage of their parades. We all know what they mean by "Gay Pride" lets don't candy coat it.

Jim

[Mr MojoRisin]

Since we're on the this subject. This is an interesting clip. It's title" Heterosexuals the first perverts"

Jim

https://youtu.be/JwCDkPESFYU?list=PL037C099F1FDAB1EC

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by DSK

You love those gay guys and everything they stand for, don't you?

AssupRidee also loves everything they bend over for, too. How do you think he got his name?

[CuteOldGuy]

Why is marriage only limited to one man and one woman? That's not even in the Bible. Lots of Jews had many wives and concubines. The New Testament only limited Elders to one wife, not the general population. Historical marriage is all over the map with who and how many can't marry.

Keep government out of it. As long as those involved are consenting adults, leave them alone.

[novacain]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why is marriage only limited to one man and one woman? That's not even in the Bible. Lots of Jews had many wives and concubines. The New Testament only limited Elders to one wife, not the general population. Historical marriage is all over the map with who and how many can't marry.

Keep government out of it. As long as those involved are consenting adults, leave them alone.

Finally, someone that gets it!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DSK

You love those gay guys and everything they stand for, don't you?

You fear everything and you want to kill them, JL, don't you?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

AssupRidee also loves everything they bend over for, too. How do you think he got his name?

How utterly refreshing! Salina Glory Hole talking!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why is marriage only limited to one man and one woman? That's not even in the Bible. Lots of Jews had many wives and concubines. The New Testament only limited Elders to one wife, not the general population. Historical marriage is all over the map with who and how many can't marry.

Keep government out of it. As long as those involved are consenting adults, leave them alone.

Glad you agree with me, Whiny.

Pity you can't express your opinion witho pandering to the pigs feet crowd in the cheap seats. I get it, you don't want you buddies DJL and SLOBBRIN to think you're a goddamned fag!

[JD Barleycorn]

A couple of things (this is my thread after all); Novie started his part on this thread by spitting out the word bigot frequently. Not really the way to have a conversation but that is not what you wanted. You wanted to bitch and so you did.

As for the more' of one man and one wife. This is not about 2,000 years ago. That is a false argument. No, we're talking about maybe the last five hundred years and western civilization. Now I'm sure you can find one, two, or even three exceptions to the rule but it has been the rule for some time. It is the standard, the norm, the usual to have two people in a marriage. One man, one woman. The left is celebrating that the freakin Supreme Court of the United States redefined a concept. Even Webster's dictionary doesn't do that. The left should worry about what a conservative court could redefine at some future date. The precedent is there now.

The problem is that government has involved itself in marriage with licenses, divorce laws, tax laws, etc. I imagine that it will take years to pull government out of a private matter. In spite of what some idiots think (Novie) I don't care who is fucking who. I do care how people present themselves in public, especially in front of children. I care that taxes are fair though I think they're too high and the money is wasted. I also care that a concept that the majority of the American people are opposed to are going to be forced to celebrate or be attacked as "bigots". Novie has already done that on this thread. The minority should be protected but not at the expense of the majority. I'll make a prediction here and now; within a year, we will see a flurry of lawsuits and judgements attacking Americans and their institutions on behalf of "gay rights".

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If you want to take up for the gay life style that's fine. But the arrogance and vulgarity of gays in general is displayed in footage of their parades. We all know what they mean by "Gay Pride" lets don't candy coat it.

Jim

Jim, you are talking about a small minority of gays/lesbians. Most live very quiet lives and keep their sexuality to themselves. A handful march in the parades and a handful of that handful dress like those pictured early in this thread. I'm sure you've seen pictures of gay/lesbian couples getting marriage licenses this week. Did you see any of them dressed provocatively? Doubtful.

Ever hear of Eeyore's Birthday Party in Austin? A yearly event at which a bunch of predominantly straight people get together, smoke a little pot, and have a lot of fun which is very sexual in nature. Definitely not family-friendly for most families.

https://www.google.com/search?q=eeyo...A&ved=0CDUQsAQ

[JD Barleycorn]

I wonder who got the bronze.

Here is a link to the Austin gay pride parade

https://www.google.com/search?q=eeyo...+parade+austin

Austin looks pretty tame in both cases

[shanm]

I was at the Mardi Gras Parade in New Orleans back in February. Girls were walking around with their tits out. Others had the self respect to cover them up......until you give them a set of beads. Yes, you can exchange a set of neck-beads......to see a pair of tits. Any tits.

The notion that its only gay parades that contain this type of vulgarity is total bullshit.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by shanm

I was at the Mardi Gras Parade in New Orleans back in February. Girls were walking around with their tits out. Others had the self respect to cover them up......until you give them a set of beads. Yes, you can exchange a set of neck-beads......to see a pair of tits. Any tits.

The notion that its only gay parades that contain this type of vulgarity is total bullshit.

So is that what gave you and woomby the idea to exchange blow jobs for a set of beads ? Just drop to your knees right there in the street and go after it ? Can't have the ladies more colorful than you two now can we ? Were you wearing your rainbow thongs, mascara, lipstick and high heels ? Which one of you was wearing the wedding dress then ?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by novacain

The original "traditional" meaning of marriage included it being "for life", it was then adjusted due to divorce. So if it can be adjusted for that, a change that came about through changes in society, then what's the issue with it now again being adjusted for this change in society. Do you see the logic now, no one said shit when it changed before but this change, this change just can not be allowed to happen, even though this a change due to the change in society same as before....... where's the difference.
As you stated: "Centuries of divorce didn't repudiate the traditional meaning of marriage.", so if that's true, then how does allowing gays to marry legally change anything but the wording. Allowing it changes nothing about the real core value and meaning of marriage "the union of a loving committed couple", it adjusts it to include a segment of people not currently included.

Now you have changed your whole argument. Before you said the high divorce rate justified gay marriage (which makes no sense). Now you say the fact that marriage was (in your opinion) redefined to allow for divorce means there is no reason we shouldn't redefine it further to allow for things like same-sex couples.Very weak argument. Constant redefinition erodes the underlying meaning of a word or concept, and your argument sets no limits to further changes - why exclude the "union of a loving committed threesome"? Why am I barred from marrying my dog (she'll never ask for a divorce)? If you scoff then you're a bigot!

Besides, you are wrong to suggest the definition of marriage was changed to accommodate divorce in the first place. As I said earlier, divorce is as old as marriage. The ideal is a lifetime union, but the reality has always fallen short. Divorce didn't change the definition; it merely acknowledged the fact that not all marriages succeed by allowing you to become un-married again.

.

[novacain]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Now you have changed your whole argument. Before you said the high divorce rate justified gay marriage (which makes no sense). Now you say the fact that marriage was (in your opinion) redefined to allow for divorce means there is no reason we shouldn't redefine it further to allow for things like same-sex couples.Very weak argument. Constant redefinition erodes the underlying meaning of a word or concept, and your argument sets no limits to further changes - why exclude the "union of a loving committed threesome"? Why am I barred from marrying my dog (she'll never ask for a divorce)? If you scoff then you're a bigot!
I don't scoff at this idea but the fact is in the 2 examples you have set forth, there are long standing laws and legal arguments against but, such is not the case with gay marriage.

Besides, you are wrong to suggest the definition of marriage was changed to accommodate divorce in the first place. As I said earlier, divorce is as old as marriage. The ideal is a lifetime union, but the reality has always fallen short. Divorce didn't change the definition; it merely acknowledged the fact that not all marriages succeed by allowing you to become un-married again.
Sorry, ideal wasn't in the definition, if you allow the definition to change for one reason, then that same allowance has to be given for other reasons.
Definition: noun a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary
Once "for life" was pulled out, the EXACT meaning of the word was changed, proving it could be and setting the precedent for future change. 60 years ago the definition of the word marriage was the same as it is now.......... can you honestly say that it still holds the same meaning today as it did those 60 years ago?
Words change, meanings change, life itself changes, all things change, trying to stop that change is futile

.

Nope argument didn't change, you just don't want to see it.
"for life" was at one time included in the definition of marriage........... divorce and the divorce rate proves that the definition was changed before. So since it's been changed before, there is no standing that it can not once again change. The meaning of marriage will still be the same as it ever was, only the legal definition is being changed. The legal definition of marriage was only just put in place by states about 12 years ago, before that the legal definition was only assumed but not a law of: one man and one woman. That legal definition was set in place by states right about the same time as gays and lesbians decided to challenge that assumed definition, again interesting the timing. No if that legal definition predated by a good degree gay's and lesbian's pursuit of marriage, you'd have a much better leg to stand on with denying it. The fact it only happened at the same time as gay's and lesbian's made the endeavor to both be married and have it legally recognized, shows the true reason why it was done.

Now one of the arguments being made against gay marriage is it's impact on children. How is gay marriage any more impactful on children than divorce is, and we allow divorce, hell you make the argument that divorce has gone hand in hand with marriage. No one did or has tried to outlaw divorce, yet it hurts the meaning of marriage and has a direct impact on children, no one really seems to give a shit in that case.
Now when two people of the same sex decide that they want to enter into the bonds of marriage as a loving committed couple and have that bond recognized by law, everyone goes ape shit. This will have zero impact on the institution of marriage, no one yet has been able to make a solid case that it will. This was and is a non-issue, it's just a way to hold a group of people back due to ignorance and fear.

There are vastly more important issues that need dealing with in this country, it's a fucking shame that this one was used to get in the way and take the focus off of them.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If you want to take up for the gay life style that's fine. But the arrogance and vulgarity of gays in general is displayed in footage of their parades. We all know what they mean by "Gay Pride" lets don't candy coat it.

Jim

I truly thought you were smarter than this. There's a few gay idiots that dress and present themselves like those pictured. When I see shit like this, I am reminded of the classic Onion headline "Gay Pride Parade Sets Gay Rights Back 50 Years"....

It's a fringe element. Does the KKK represent you when they march? Come on, man. You know that gays are not arrogant and vulgar in general. They're just people, trying to get along....like you and me.