I'm agreeing with liberals more and more lately

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Hi Hairy!

Gurk, ... So now you're claiming marriage rights are equal for all men and women everywhere except Massachussetts?

No, I'm pointing out the irrefutable fact that in Massachusetts homosexuals have "special rights" not available to other kinds of sexual deviants and normal people.

See Jane. Jane, being unmarried and of legal age, has the right to marry Bob, who is also of legal age and unmarried.

Jack, however, does not have the right to marry Bob, even though Jack is unmarried and of legal age. Ergo, Jack does not have the same right to marry as Jane.

You may claim that these are rights with parity, but where Jane, in any non-MA state, has the right to marry any single, willing, and adult male, Jack clearly does not.

This is because there is no such thing as "same-sex marriage". The very idea is a perversion, a mockery and a joke. Of course Bob can't "marry" Jack - their relationship simply does not fit the definition, so does not qualify. Jack and Bob are denied nothing by being told they don't qualify for "marriage" anymore than I am denied anything by being denied federal farm subsidies since I don't own farmland. I don't qualify.

You see, homosexaul relationships, no matter how sublime and wonderful for the homosexuals involved, are ALWAYS utterly barren and sterile and are completely bereft of any potential to create new life - and it is this procreative potential that is inherent in the man/woman union that lies at the heart of the cultural conception of what Marriage is. (And it is this cultural conception that the marxist bug homo-poervert activists want to destroy.)

Note that gay marriages are not transient, any more than heterosexual marriages are transient.

Whatever - I note you fixate upon that minor bit of hyberpole and completely ignore the actual point.

Would you like to know how many kids my lesbian cousin, who tied the knot officially just about as soon as it was legal in MA (she actually lives in the DC area, but the symbology was nice), is raising?

Did she have these kids BEFORE she decided to become a lesbian - or did she get some schmuck to whack off in a cup so she could use his spooge to inseminate herself with a turkey baster?

There aren't too many left that are legally recognized, thanks to the civil rights movement, but there are one or two others we can get to in time.

Roll 'em out! It's obvious we agree to disagree in the issue of homosexuals defiling Marriage.

"100 million over the past 100 years," says the man who keeps trying to define facists as the ideological left, ...

Let's save whether fascists are left or right for another time.

Mmm... shall we then move 50 million or so deaths over from your left hand column to your right hand column?

No, I didn't count the nazis or the dago fascists or Generalissimo Franco. That 100 million is a CONSERVATIVE estimate that covers the Societ Union, China, Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Cuba and Central and South America.

This, when about 200 million or so individuals have been tracably murdered by various states over the years, with estimates widely varying on who is to blame for how many deaths and what counts as one of the murders in question. The ideological left is no more to blame than the ideological right, thank you muchly.

Do you really want to play ping pong with ideological murder counts? Your hero, Che, alone is responsible for several thousand. Let's stick with the primary argument.

What other rights, besides pervert "marriage", do I have as a straight white man that others from these culturally marxist Identity groups do not?

 

[Blindgroping]

Both of you!!!

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Both of you!!!

Pound sand, shitstick!

You can join the discussion and contribute something ... but probably not since you're a dullard and a jagoff.

 

[Blindgroping]

Jagoff?
Do you feel special using that word?
I view you as being Special for using that word.

 

[TJHairball]

No, I'm pointing out the irrefutable fact that in Massachusetts homosexuals have "special rights" not available to other kinds of sexual deviants and normal people.

"Special rights?"

Name one. The right to be married to a singular person of legal adulthood and full consent?

That's not "special." It's the same right as offered to those gosh-darn deviant heterosexuals, and those bisexuals who for some reason decide to settle down with a member of the opposite sex permanently and monogamously.

This is because there is no such thing as "same-sex marriage".

There very clearly is, Gurk.

The very idea is a perversion, a mockery and a joke. Of course Bob can't "marry" Jack - their relationship simply does not fit the definition, so does not qualify. Jack and Bob are denied nothing by being told they don't qualify for "marriage" anymore than I am denied anything by being denied federal farm subsidies since I don't own farmland. I don't qualify.

You may not choose to recognize such marriages yourself personally...

...but that's a matter of your personal beliefs. It's not a universally accepted definition, nor a factual description.

You see, homosexaul relationships, no matter how sublime and wonderful for the homosexuals involved, are ALWAYS utterly barren and sterile and are completely bereft of any potential to create new life - and it is this procreative potential that is inherent in the man/woman union that lies at the heart of the cultural conception of what Marriage is. (And it is this cultural conception that the marxist bug homo-poervert activists want to destroy.)

If children define marriage...

... then sterile couples are an abomination unto you. Heck, elderly couples must not be really married anymore - they're done creating new life and raising kids. Oh, and adoption is an abomination. That's pretty mainstream. And those lesbian couples, where one of them decides to get pregnant, and they raise kids? Really abominable.

Whatever - I note you fixate upon that minor bit of hyberpole and completely ignore the actual point.

That "hyperbole" was the main foundation for your argument. I'l like to see you demonstrate that you, as a male, don't have a right unique in 49 states: The right to marry a single consenting woman, given legal age, consent, and the lack of pre-existing marriages recognized by the state.

Did she have these kids BEFORE she decided to become a lesbian - or did she get some schmuck to whack off in a cup so she could use his spooge to inseminate herself with a turkey baster?

None of your business when or how the kids came around, what her history is, or anything else. Suffice it to say that couple is engaged in childraising, and is quite good at it so far as I can tell.

Roll 'em out! It's obvious we agree to disagree in the issue of homosexuals defiling Marriage.

I don't believe we're at the stage of cheerfully agreeing to disagree yet there, but I'll give you the prompt for the next equal rights fare on the government table: Women in combat roles.

Let's save whether fascists are left or right for another time.

No, let's lay a couple things on the table.

Whether or not you think facists are right wing or left wing... all the other political groupings you're claiming as liberal will label them right wing, along with most neutral parties, and the facists are indeliably opposed to all the other groups you're claiming as liberal. They also appealed to traditional and nationalist values. Short end of the story: Facists were (and in most cases are, in their rare fringe parties) a peculiar variety of right wing political creature.

I don't consider their behavior necessary for or essential to the right wing; it's an extreme and militaristic case.

No, I didn't count the nazis or the dago fascists or Generalissimo Franco. That 100 million is a CONSERVATIVE estimate that covers the Societ Union, China, Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Cuba and Central and South America.

Don't even pretend that's a conservative death count in the proper adjectival sense of the word. It comes from so-called "conservative" sources, but it's not by any means conservative.

You can easily reach that by liberal use of death estimates for Mao and Stalin.

Stalin: Estimates vary widely. Conservative end of respectable estimates for purges, planned famines, etc etc: 16 million.
Mao: Estimates vary widely. Conservative end of respectable estimates for purges etc: 16 million.
Korea, Cambodia, and Vietnam run about 3 million each. Mind, in the case of Korea and Vietnam, the US was responsible for most of the casualties, so it's not appropriate to lay them at the feet of the "ideological left." I'm aware of nothing in South America on a similar scale.

Do you really want to play ping pong with ideological murder counts? Your hero, Che, alone is responsible for several thousand. Let's stick with the primary argument.

Did I say he was my hero?

No, I did not. You did, and made the mistake of bringing him up in the same paragraph you claimed the Left was out to abolish marriage.

You also started with the death count BS by pulling out what amounts to a propaganda figure - out of context for death as a whole. If you want to play that game, I can lay quite a death count out on capitalism's feet. Or alcohol. Or tobacco. Or Ford. Or on the Inquisition and Crusades. There's a good reason that just about everybody, even in the American Communist Party, distanced themselves from Stalin once it became clear what he'd really been up to - by and large, leftists does not like mass murderers. At the bloodiest, we sometimes like revolutionaries with relatively low death counts and some measurable positive results, like Che.

Mind you, most of the large-scale murder occurring can be traced to wars, where the responsibility is typically shared or difficult to fully attribute to a singular party.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

"Special rights?"

Name one. The right to be married to a singular person of legal adulthood and full consent?

That's not "special." It's the same right as offered to those gosh-darn deviant heterosexuals ...

Homosexuals in Massachusetts demanded and received - at the behest of four unelected, unaccountable extreme left wing hate-America Judges - the "special right" to have Marriage legally redefined to accomodate their behavioral perversions.

This was done WITHOUT the consent of The People of Mass, and efforts by The People to rectify this usurpation by having the issue placed upon a ballot are being thwarted at every turn by leftist haters of liberty. Leftist bugs hate elections they cannot rig; thus they are fighting the Mass initiative tooth and nail becasue they know that everywhere else this issue goes on a ballot, the perverts lose by an average margin of 70+% against.

If children define marriage ... then sterile couples are an abomination unto you. Heck, elderly couples must not be really married anymore ...

What part of "procreative POTENTIAL" did you fail to understand? That some married couples do not or cannot produce progeny in no way invalidates the irrefutable fact that man/woman unions are generally fecund and homo/homo unions are always sterile. And do you deny that Marriage has always been associated with family-formation and progeny across all cultures and times?

That "hyperbole" was the main foundation for your argument. I'l like to see you demonstrate that you, as a male, don't have a right unique in 49 states: The right to marry a single consenting woman, given legal age, consent, and the lack of pre-existing marriages recognized by the state.

No, it wasn't, and in 49 states marriage rights are exactly equal for everyone of both genders: any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man. Exactly equal. To redefine marriage to include the deviant-sex-based love affairs of homosexual perverts is, in effect, according special rights just for homosexuals based solely upon their degenerate behaviors.

None of your business when or how the kids came around, what her history is, or anything else. Suffice it to say that couple is engaged in childraising, and is quite good at it so far as I can tell.

Sorry, but it is quite relevant. Homosexual demands to marriage rights are based upon the claim that homosexual behavior is an inherent trait - if your cousin had these children through a romantic liason with a man, then she really can't claim to have been "born" a lesbian, can she? However; if she turkey basted herself, then any claim to have been born a deviant would stand up better to scrutiny. In either case, no progeny was produced from within her union with her partner, thus her relationship cannot be defined as a "marriage".

I don't believe we're at the stage of cheerfully agreeing to disagree yet there ...

Sure we are! You think it's cool to smear the institution of Marriage with the fecal filth of pervertry, and I don't.

, but I'll give you the prompt for the next equal rights fare on the government table: Women in combat roles.

On that one we would agree. History is repleat with examples of the viciousness of womens in combat. I say hand 'em a weapon and send 'em to the front! But is dying or killing in combat really a "right" in the context we're discussing?

... any other rights I have that others don't?

Whether or not you think facists are right wing or left wing...

Boring. This is a different argument, let's stay on this one. And don't bother trying to poke me with the "righ wing" stick ... you're assuming because I attack the vermin left that I must consider myself "right".

As for the death counts - you know the only reason leftists are so adamant in insisting that nazism and fascism are "rightist" is simply to avoid having to explain why all the mass murderers of the 20th century were leftists.

Did I say he (Che) was my hero? ... At the bloodiest, we sometimes like revolutionaries with relatively low death counts and some measurable positive results, like Che.

Spot the dichotomy? Anyone?

So, you think Che got "positive results" when he personally blew the brains out of innocent people who's only crime was owning property Fidel wanted to confiscate?

oh wait ... you think property is theft. nevermind

åß

 

[Blindgroping]

åß


Interesting symbol you got there.

 

[The Question]

åß


Interesting symbol you got there.

I may be mistaken on that one, but I believe it's "aus" or "out."