Laughable paradox of conservatives preaching their value from an escort review board

[Whirlaway]

There is no discrimination in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The definition doesn't create discrimination. Our government has a definition for "Native American" the definition doesn't create discrimination of native Americans.

[JD Barleycorn]

Of course the typical conservative is more concerned with fiscal responsiblity, national defense, and a responsive Congress than what you are doing in the bedroom or the front seat of your car.

It is the neo-liberal who wants to dictate what they think is moral and correct. Think smoking laws, transfat laws, salt laws, sugar laws, obesity laws, tanning laws, soft drink laws, and it was Harry Reid (democrat Nevada) that said prostitution should be made illegal. Kansas City has been controlled by democrats for decades and they love to throw out stings.

[Guest123018-4]

Who is this fucktard that presumes to judge us.
I fart in his general direction and scoff at him.
Scoff. Scoff.

[Guest123018-4]

I think he does not understand that values mean a lot more than he thinks. Just because you have values does not mean that you want or will impose a certain morality upon another.
The issues of gay marriage is not one of morals but of a standard that has existed for as long as there have been queers. Uphold the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is nothing new.

I really do not care if you are an atheist or have a belief in something, just dont go putting your bullshit on me or infringing my right to believe the way I choose.
Right now I believe I need to get laid.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by 4karlos

...I can see those conservatives guys drooling at 2 girls getting down on each other, but then screaming to the heaven sake that we have a president allowing gays to have a life

What a retarded comparision.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Haven't you been paying attention, Ekim? The liberals have told us numerous times that they are more moral, more tolerant, more generous and more intelligent than the rest of us. In fact, they have cited surveys taken by liberal organizations to prove it. It's obvious, liberals are superior, by their own admission.

Well crap I'm on the wrong side I guess.Thought the moral majority was on the right. I should pay attention.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Gays getting married is the least of our problems.

Just because you get all the immoral dick you want does not mean that all gays do. Some want to marry and settle down with just one pig in the blanket.

If it is no big deal, then let them have at it and enough of this kind of nonsense:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There is no discrimination in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The definition doesn't create discrimination. Our government has a definition for "Native American" the definition doesn't create discrimination of native Americans.

Yes it does. Just as it would if it said marriage was only between white ignorant conservatives. If you inbreds were the only ones recieving any of the benifits , then yes it is discrimination.

Whirly, if only gay people could marry. You could only marry the same sex to recieve Federal/State benifits, would that be discrimination? I sure the fuc think it would be...no matter how long it had been a tradition. Discrimination is discrimination.

[Whirlaway]

How is the legal definition of "Native American" discrimatory?

It isn't. And the DOM act definition isn't discrimatory either. Not if there is other/similar/equal accomodation.

The G&L community can achieve the same protections and rights under "civil union" legislation.

You sound stupid when you say "discrimination is discrimination". Of course it is, but defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discrimination; it simply is a definition,

[Af-Freakin]

im shocked 1 ov u conservatards didnt say that hobbying prevents divorce cuz a dude can satisfy hiz needs wit a paid lady rather than a gf. LOL! hypocrisy!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How is the legal definition of "Native American" discrimatory?

It isn't. And the DOM act definition isn't discrimatory either. Not if there is other/similar/equal accomodation.

The G&L community can achieve the same protections and rights under "civil union" legislation.

You sound stupid when you say "discrimination is discrimination". Of course it is, but defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discrimination; it simply is a definition,

Yea a discriminatory one!

Not letting gays marry is discrimination. You sound stupid telling them that civil unions are equal. They are not and I have proven so.

Defining the KKK as a discriminatory group does not mean that they do not discriminate. You can't say the KKK does not discriminate just because they hate all blacks or that it is just a definition. WTF? Who been filling your head with this simplistic chatter? A Purple Teletubby? Bert and Ernie?



In the context of gay marriage, defining it as between a man and a woman is discrimination. Just as if I defined it between two men. That would be discrimination.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

4karlos is not the only pompous, clueless liberal who fails to realize that.

Proving me right yet again!

[nevergaveitathought]

lets see liberals and morals..hmmm

the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life.

but liberalism will end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.

The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated under liberal philosophy. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority.

It is hardly necessary to expound on the ways such powers will be abused by such malevolent persons in authority.

the only way a society ruled by liberals/socialism et al can survive is by an ever expanding police function except if its people lose initiative and
love of freedom and become mere lackluster wards happy with handouts

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Doove

Proving me right yet again!

doubtful you could be proved right save your whole left side be amputated

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

lets see liberals and morals..hmmm

the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life.

but liberalism will end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.

The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated under liberal philosophy. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority.

So you think gay marriage is restricting ''The personal freedom of the individual..'' ?

Please convey that to Whirlyway!

[Whirlaway]

Recognizing "Marriage" for heterosexuals and "civil unions" for gays is not disriminatory ; if civil union provides full public accomodation in contracts, medical issues, estate and other matters.