Gay-Baiting Congress Puts on a Show This Week
- Thread starter Eggs Mayonnaise
- Start date
Friday said:
Let me help you out here. I believe in absolutes! It either is or it is not! You either agree or you do not! If you are unsure it just means you do not agree with it or you just dont fucking know better!
Its filthy. And if you dont agree then you have a moral relativist view of things and therefore cannot say anything against anyone, because all things being relative they are just as right and moral as you are no matter the differences!
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Messenger said:
Would you describe the behaviors that define homosexuality as "clean"?
What does the word "nigger" have to do with correctly describing assfuck pervert homosexuals as "filthy"?
Bwa HAHAHAHA - no, but apparently your rectum is still a bit sore from the virtual ass-reaming I gave you over on the Question's Iran thread.
Seriously, why are you so defensive of homosexual perverts? Have you fallen for the cultural marxist line that homosexuals are an "Identity Group" worthy of respect and dignity and their own specially defined "rights" due to their behaviors being an "inherent trait"?
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
lol... that was a good one.
If homosexuality is a gene, then its a defect! One that nature certainly does not wish continued because it refuses to allow same sex reproduction!
Its not a defect! Its a fucking moral choice just like killing someone. You either do your you dont!
Cranky Bastard
New member
So.... no one was able to answer why gays need to be married?
Sounds to me like Messenger knows what I'm aiming at, and that speaks well for his intelligence.
But no other takers? No answers? Just "gays need to be married?" Someone open their fool mouths, please. Why do gays need to be married?
Sounds to me like Messenger knows what I'm aiming at, and that speaks well for his intelligence.
But no other takers? No answers? Just "gays need to be married?" Someone open their fool mouths, please. Why do gays need to be married?
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
I answered the question 3 pages ago before this thread degenerated and I left it.
Cranky Bastard
New member
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
If this is your answer - this politically correct rhetoric - then please illustrate just one "basic legal right" that gays are denied that belong to every other citizen.
It was 2 pages back, not 3. 3 pages back would get "Understood" as an answer. Try to be pertinent.
And I still ask why gays need marriage? No one wants to answer? Messenger posted something about "discrimination..." How are gays being discriminated against? How? Where? Cite examples please, rather than politically correct rhetoric.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
This debate has largely dragged on unresolved because of the rhetoric from the other side! The word "marriage" is the molotov cocktail that opponents like to lob to frighten people into thinking that it should be a moral debate, and not a legal one.
What gay unions are called is unimportant to me. It's the opposition that insists on calling it marriage in order to demonize it. But gay unions need to be universally recognized as valid legal unions, so that gay families will be able to do trivial things like draw up wills, name dependents on healthcare and insurance policies, file tax returns as they see fit, and other incosequential details of life.
And the inevitable answer comes back that OH TEH GHEYS WILL JUST MARRY FOR THE BENEFITS!!! But that hasn't been proven to be a factor any more than it is in straight partnerships. The point is, nobody questions straight partnerships because there is no PREDUJICE against them at the outset.
Yes, it is as simple as: We need legal recognition in order to be protected against unjust discrimination. It's not a special privilege being afforded to us, it's simply taking away barriers to the same rights afforded traditional families.
It is that simple, and that logical, and yet the fire and brimstone types usually register their diagreement with the usual dollop of disgust and hatred rather than answer rationally.
What gay unions are called is unimportant to me. It's the opposition that insists on calling it marriage in order to demonize it. But gay unions need to be universally recognized as valid legal unions, so that gay families will be able to do trivial things like draw up wills, name dependents on healthcare and insurance policies, file tax returns as they see fit, and other incosequential details of life.
And the inevitable answer comes back that OH TEH GHEYS WILL JUST MARRY FOR THE BENEFITS!!! But that hasn't been proven to be a factor any more than it is in straight partnerships. The point is, nobody questions straight partnerships because there is no PREDUJICE against them at the outset.
Yes, it is as simple as: We need legal recognition in order to be protected against unjust discrimination. It's not a special privilege being afforded to us, it's simply taking away barriers to the same rights afforded traditional families.
It is that simple, and that logical, and yet the fire and brimstone types usually register their diagreement with the usual dollop of disgust and hatred rather than answer rationally.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
Actually, no. It is the verminous homosexual activists who insist upon appropriating the word "marriage" to define their disgusting lust affairs. If one reasonably agrees that gay couples should be accorded legal recognition under the title "Civil Unions" - then the perverts start shrieking "separate but equal", couching their filthy social agenda in the language of civil rights.. Personally, I would support Civil Unions, but I would never abide Marriage being defiled by being legally redefined to include the relationships of amoral sexual deviants.
"Gay Families"???? What are "gay families"? Are these families that anonymously cornhole each other at wayside toilets? What? Or are these homosexuals who propagated children BEFORE they decided to become perverts?
Nothing you have listed above is "denied" to sexual deviants. All they need is a good lawyer.
That's because normal people aren't filthy and disgusting deviants.
Demanding that an ancient and venerable cultural institution be legally redefined to accomodate the behavioral tics of degenerates is, indeed, according "special rights" to people based solely upon their behaviors.
I don't "hate" pervert homosexuals. I look at them as I would midget clowns at the circus or side show freaks. I find their antics amusing, but I wouldn't want one anywhere near my children.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Messenger said:
Are you claiming that homosexuality is an inherent behavioral trait?
Please cite any definitive scientific proof to back up this absurd assertion?
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
It's like debating through a time machine with the past.
Or with an acne-riddled geek pretending he's a puffy-shirted elder and his cardboard box is a time machine to the past, anyway...
Or with an acne-riddled geek pretending he's a puffy-shirted elder and his cardboard box is a time machine to the past, anyway...
Biologically? Yes.Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Oh, let me guess... you're one of those who think it's a 'lifestyle choice,' don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
There are many different factors which contribute to a person becoming a homosexual instead of a heterosexual. Biology is one of them. I can show you even more if that isn't enough.
Cranky Bastard
New member
Wiki? You must be kidding. The only time I ever brought up Wiki as a source (for opinion - not even science!) I was roundly laughed out of here.
Eggs and spooge attempted to throw some rhetoric at my question, but I see it still goes unanswered. All we get is some fantastical reference to time machines as an insult to our thinking.
Absurdly quaint.
I'll repeat the question for those who think they have brains:
Why do gays need to be married?
It's not a trick question.
Eggs and spooge attempted to throw some rhetoric at my question, but I see it still goes unanswered. All we get is some fantastical reference to time machines as an insult to our thinking.
Absurdly quaint.
I'll repeat the question for those who think they have brains:
Why do gays need to be married?
It's not a trick question.
So what you're saying is that you have no way to really contest this, and instead prefer to attack the source.Cranky Bastard said:
Fine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
Messenger said:
This is what is so funny. You show your fucking 2-faced biases shit all the damn time. This is why I say you fucking liberals are a contradiction in terms!
We when say something is wrong, filthy, bad, or evil you try to slap it asside and call it relative! I guess you dont just fucking get what you just said BITCH! When you call it relative you place your own fucking arguements on the same "relative" playing field! You contradict your very self when you claim you are right and that we are wrong, but use the term relative in a paradoxical attempt to strike down our posts! Dont you fuckers get educations in your part of the universe!
SSgt_Sniper
Factional Warfare
A marriage is one man and one woman. That's what it is.
That said, civil unions between whomever and whomever I have no problem with. Just don't call it something it's not.
That said, civil unions between whomever and whomever I have no problem with. Just don't call it something it's not.
Hambil said:
Did you know that origionally not even all white men were allowed to vote at the begining of the foundation of the US of good ole A?
I wonder if you knew that? Hell they even tried to keep positions of power in the family of Rich people as well. The general concensus back then as it is still now... the general population is too stupid to know what is good for them. In many ways I simply have to agree! But it still does not make it right! Because the Majority must have ITS say, even it it brings the nation itself straight to hell! You will find that most of the founding fathers were against democracy as it is seen now!