With the Supreme Court's decision today striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was based more on sociology than the law the few of us who pay taxes will get to pay even more. And all of our kids will get saddled with more debt.

The lesbian who was a party in today's decision was upset because she incurred $360,053 in estate taxes when her lover died. If she was given that type of tax bill just think how much she already took home. The first $3,500,000 of her inheritance was already tax free. Us taxpayers will get to "refund" the $360k tax bill. Her "refund" will greatly exceed what the vast majority of Americans take home from WORKING for a period of many years. Yeah, I don't feel her pain.

We are also going to have more people getting federal benefits - not because the feds said that they should be entitled to them but because the states are giving individuals a status that the US Congress and a US President said they shouldn't have. The feds never said that states couldn't marry gays - only that such a "marriage" would not entitle them to federally dictated benefits.

Gays will now get entitlements to benefits such as tax breaks (intended for married couples raising children), health insurance, etc. Given that many people in the gay culture never viewed marriage as part of their lifestyle, how many gays will "marry" to give someone else their health benefits or to get a tax break. That's not to say that this didn't happen in heterosexual couples but at least there was a well established culture among heteros that marriage was a meaningful thing.

And we are now on a slippery slope that even heteros will take advantage of. It is only a matter of time before someone makes an argument that allowing people to only marry one person is unlawful discrimination. And if your betrothed just happens to be a close family member that is otherwise not (currently) allowed to marry - that's discrimination too.

About the only good thing about this social engineering based SCOTUS decision is that Obamacare, already on the ropes, will not likely survive.

Not making a ruling on prop 8 was the only disappointment of that ruling.

That ruling did do a lot of good, got the feds out of marriage, should leave it to the states where it belongs, encourages marriage which is a general deterrent unsavory behaviors and maybe now we can actually have an election thats based on the issues instead of bullshit social things like gay marriage.

As long as Chruches arent forced to perform gay marriage its fine. If states want to marry them by all means go for it. You are right though that polygamists did just get their argument strengthened.

The woman was just tired of taking a licking....... in taxes

FurloughGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And all of our kids will get saddled with more debt.

Your grandchildren and their kids are going to look back and think you were a backward asshole. In a loving way; "look at how stupid" they were back then. And they'll laugh at your remembrance.

Won't matter in the long run since the US will break apart in the near future anyway. You're all living in the future "Mid-Atlantic District of the North American Union".

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not making a ruling on prop 8 was the only
> disappointment of that ruling.

I agree. I think Prop. 8 should've stood, as the reality of it was that it denied the term "marriage" to homosexuals. Therefore, it was not particularly popular among liberal Californians.

> That ruling did do a lot of good, got the feds out
> of marriage, should leave it to the states where
> it belongs, encourages marriage which is a general
> deterrent unsavory behaviors and maybe now we can
> actually have an election thats based on the
> issues instead of bullshit social things like gay
> marriage.

I think 38 of 50 states have banned gay marriage. It may be 39, actually. I know New Jersey is ambiguous. Of course, now every state's gay marriage law is going to be challenged. Regardless, I agree that the elections have a chance of being based on the issues now. However, the liberal Democrats will make some nonsense up and the conservatives will have to deal with it in one way or another. I sense a fight over something else of trivial importance coming up.

Hopefully, the Republicans will take enough of the Senate that Obama won't be able to do anything. And for all you liberal wack jobs out there; I'm a Democrat. I'm just tired of the ridiculously left-wing nature of the Democratic Party. The moderates have been driven out and replaced by people who toe the party line. People who can't think for themselves.

Hindsight may be 20-20, but if I had been in the Senate at the time and had the ability to read through the whole ACA, I would've voted against it. It's not a bad idea, but it's horribly implemented.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree. I think Prop. 8 should've stood, as the
> reality of it was that it denied the term
> "marriage" to homosexuals. Therefore, it was not
> particularly popular among liberal Californians.

It really doesnt get any more democratic than allowing everyone to have a vote on something like that. Even if they wanted to let it stand they should have affirmed it making their own ruling on it instead of kicking it back and leaving it open for more challenges. I dont think theyve made up their mind on that yes so they just took a pass.


> I think 38 of 50 states have banned gay marriage.
> It may be 39, actually. I know New Jersey is
> ambiguous. Of course, now every state's gay
> marriage law is going to be challenged.
> Regardless, I agree that the elections have a
> chance of being based on the issues now. However,
> the liberal Democrats will make some nonsense up
> and the conservatives will have to deal with it in
> one way or another. I sense a fight over something
> else of trivial importance coming up.

Unfortunately Im sure well just get another non issue pressed to the forefront of society as the challenge to our time that shouldnt even crack the top 25 of the most important things being discussed.

They could simply just say were putting it on the ballot in every state next presidential election and let the people decide. I havent read the judgement yet but it sounds like the SCOUTUS refrained from ruling on gay marriage itself and more or less said that it will have the same benefits but left it up to the states to decide.

Which again means all this will be coming back to the SCOTUS anyway and soon so why not stand by your decision and do it all at once now. Kind of a gutless ruling by the majority in my opinion. Either ruling on Prop 8 or simply stating its a states right issue in the Doma ruling would have removed a lot of uncertainty.

> Hopefully, the Republicans will take enough of the
> Senate that Obama won't be able to do anything.
> And for all you liberal wack jobs out there; I'm a
> Democrat. I'm just tired of the ridiculously
> left-wing nature of the Democratic Party. The
> moderates have been driven out and replaced by
> people who toe the party line. People who can't
> think for themselves.

That would be ideal. At the very least keep enough seats that its not 09 all over again. A super majority now with no fear of needing to be elected again is a terrifying thought. As awful as that would be I do have to admit it would be interesting to see how much influence Obama actually has, seems like Reid would be running the show to make sure the dems are still electable when Obama is gone.

> Hindsight may be 20-20, but if I had been in the
> Senate at the time and had the ability to read
> through the whole ACA, I would've voted against
> it. It's not a bad idea, but it's horribly
> implemented.

Not to mention there should have to be a quiz or something before you can vote for something, maybe a page limit for bills too. No one read the thing yet somehow knew it was a great idea

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really doesnt get any more democratic than
> allowing everyone to have a vote on something like
> that. Even if they wanted to let it stand they
> should have affirmed it making their own ruling on
> it instead of kicking it back and leaving it open
> for more challenges. I dont think theyve made up
> their mind on that yes so they just took a pass.

Of course it doesn't. But it won't happen. Regardless of what polls may show, the country really isn't that liberal. The young people (whom I'm an unfortunate member of) don't tend to vote. This is fortunate, because most of them support gay marriage. It was a very simple case: yes or no. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to make it more difficult than it ever should've been.

> Either ruling on Prop 8 or simply stating its a
> states right issue in the Doma ruling would have
> removed a lot of uncertainty.

Marriage has always been a states' rights issue. It's not the providence of the national government to say who's getting married and who's not. DOMA was unconstitutional, but it's funny to see people on both sides flip-flopping now that gay marriage is supported 52-48.

> That would be ideal. At the very least keep
> enough seats that its not 09 all over again. A
> super majority now with no fear of needing to be
> elected again is a terrifying thought. As awful
> as that would be I do have to admit it would be
> interesting to see how much influence Obama
> actually has, seems like Reid would be running the
> show to make sure the dems are still electable
> when Obama is gone.

I think you mean '06, but I get your point. It's not imperative that the GOP regain the Senate. All the GOP has to do is gain 2 or 3 seats overall, which would make it 52-49, which is too small of a number to get anything done, regardless of how either side wants to get the Senate rules changed. As for the House, it's gerrymandered so badly that the GOP will have control until at least 2020, and probably longer. The GOP may have some absolutely crazy members, but I'd rather see Boehner and McConnell in control than Pelosi and Reid or (god forbid) Schultz and Reid.

> Not to mention there should have to be a quiz or
> something before you can vote for something, maybe
> a page limit for bills too. No one read the thing
> yet somehow knew it was a great idea

Yeah, welcome to DC. Pelosi said something along the lines of "vote for it, then you can find out what's in it." Fortunately, not all Democrats were that stupid. Some were bright enough to vote for the best interests of the country- against the bill.

Regardless, I don't see Hillary Clinton having an easy time in 2016, nor do I see the Democrats doing that well in 2014. People are rapidly growing sick of "Hope and change" as well as "Forward."

Pic related:
Attachments:

Whether or not it costs a lot of money is irrelevant. What matters is if the government is operating by the rules or not. In this case the "rules" are those enumerated in the Constitution. Abolishing "separate-but-equal" probably cost a lot of money. So did allowing women to vote. Oh well. That's what you get for not doing it right (and calculating the real costs) the first time.

I'm sure there were people in Virginia in 1967, who made the same argument that tax payers were going to see their taxes go up because the state was forced to allow mixed race couples to marry. Arguments that mixed race couples made it 'hard' on children were also raised then as well.

Perhaps this will make legislators think twice about creating tax loopholes for handing out our money.

And you're right about the polygamy argument. That restriction is on shaky ground as well. Why is polygamy illegal anyway? Primarily because religious legislators chose to commingle their beliefs into our laws (in spite of the fact that the Bible is rife with polygamy that God approved of, but Christians don't actually read the bible anymore, do they?) When the government starts legislating their religious beliefs, they'll eventually run into problems.

For example, it's only a matter of time before a litigious Muslim asks the question: Why are my children given a free holiday from public school for all these Christian holidays, but the Muslim holidays are ignored?



FurloughGuy Wrote:

> Gays will now get entitlements to benefits such as
> tax breaks (intended for married couples raising
> children), health insurance, etc. Given that many
> people in the gay culture never viewed marriage as
> part of their lifestyle, how many gays will
> "marry" to give someone else their health benefits
> or to get a tax break. That's not to say that
> this didn't happen in heterosexual couples but at
> least there was a well established culture among
> heteros that marriage was a meaningful thing.
>
> And we are now on a slippery slope that even
> heteros will take advantage of. It is only a
> matter of time before someone makes an argument
> that allowing people to only marry one person is
> unlawful discrimination. And if your betrothed
> just happens to be a close family member that is
> otherwise not (currently) allowed to marry -
> that's discrimination too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2013 08:27AM by trogdor!.

FurloughGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lesbian who was a party in today's decision
> was upset because she incurred $360,053 in estate
> taxes when her lover died. If she was given that
> type of tax bill just think how much she already
> took home. The first $3,500,000 of her
> inheritance was already tax free. Us taxpayers
> will get to "refund" the $360k tax bill. Her
> "refund" will greatly exceed what the vast
> majority of Americans take home from WORKING for a
> period of many years. Yeah, I don't feel her
> pain.

Of course you don't, you selfish prick. I doubt you feel anything for anyone but yourself.

> We are also going to have more people getting
> federal benefits - not because the feds said that
> they should be entitled to them but because the
> states are giving individuals a status that the US
> Congress and a US President said they shouldn't
> have. The feds never said that states couldn't
> marry gays - only that such a "marriage" would not
> entitle them to federally dictated benefits.

Chalk it up to "the cost of Liberty".

> Gays will now get entitlements to benefits such as
> tax breaks (intended for married couples raising
> children), health insurance, etc. Given that many
> people in the gay culture never viewed marriage as
> part of their lifestyle, how many gays will
> "marry" to give someone else their health benefits
> or to get a tax break. That's not to say that
> this didn't happen in heterosexual couples but at
> least there was a well established culture among
> heteros that marriage was a meaningful thing.

Married gay couples do raise children, so certainly they'ree entitled to the same benefits as herto couples. Re: "Marrying to give someone else their health benefits", you defeat your own argument in the very next sentence. Well done!

> And we are now on a slippery slope that even
> heteros will take advantage of. It is only a
> matter of time before someone makes an argument
> that allowing people to only marry one person is
> unlawful discrimination. And if your betrothed
> just happens to be a close family member that is
> otherwise not (currently) allowed to marry -
> that's discrimination too.

Personally, I don't see how yesterday's decision opens that door, time will tell.

> About the only good thing about this social
> engineering based SCOTUS decision is that
> Obamacare, already on the ropes, will not likely
> survive.

Obamacare is "on the ropes", eh? How so?

Future posters when you use the term"slippery slope" your argument drops the soap.

You know the basic problem with this issue is the lack of separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony given legal contract status. If there really was a separation, there would be no problem.

The one problem I have with gay marriage is that it isn't strictly about legal equality, it's about sticking it in the eye of traditional marriage and religious people who disagree with their lifestyle. Most of these gay couples scoff at Civil Unions, which give almost all the same rights (with the exception of federal recognition and associated rights) and insist on marriage, replicating the religious ceremony to a tee.

I don't get why people would want to participate in an institution that hates them. All religions I know of, frown upon homosexuality. Why would they want to be a part of that?

I think the only viable solution is to give civil unions the federal equality of marriage, but don't let them "marry". Keep it strictly legal and in a judicial environment. Takes the wind out of the sails of each sides logical arguments. No infringement on religious doctrine of one woman, one man and give legal equality.

But no on is really interested in solving the problem, only getting their way.

My 1/2 cent (adjusted for inflation).

GetM@th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know the basic problem with this issue is the
> lack of separation of church and state when it
> comes to marriage. Marriage is a religious
> ceremony given legal contract status. If there
> really was a separation, there would be no
> problem.
>
> The one problem I have with gay marriage is that
> it isn't strictly about legal equality, it's about
> sticking it in the eye of traditional marriage and
> religious people who disagree with their
> lifestyle. Most of these gay couples scoff at
> Civil Unions, which give almost all the same
> rights (with the exception of federal recognition
> and associated rights) and insist on marriage,
> replicating the religious ceremony to a tee.
>
> I don't get why people would want to participate
> in an institution that hates them. All religions
> I know of, frown upon homosexuality. Why would
> they want to be a part of that?
>
> I think the only viable solution is to give civil
> unions the federal equality of marriage, but don't
> let them "marry". Keep it strictly legal and in a
> judicial environment. Takes the wind out of the
> sails of each sides logical arguments. No
> infringement on religious doctrine of one woman,
> one man and give legal equality.
>
> But no on is really interested in solving the
> problem, only getting their way.

You're saying what I've been saying for months. This isn't about "equal rights," it's about terminology.

Guess that means that now any two people of any sex can now claim all available benefits by living together whether or not they are gay or heterosexual just by claiming either -- hetero or homo-- so that they can legally get all their expenses incurred while trying to live singly down to a bearable livable level!
Sounds like to me that this might be a boon for the aging population. Any two of you can now go out and find a friend, either sex, does not matter now, run down to the Justice of the peace, get a paper certificate the says you are legal and married, live together pooling all your income and assets and live like kings and queens! Roommates, friends, (pets???) now everyone can jump in to swim in the lake of the Uncle Sugar's gravy train now! All they have to do is choose what label they would like to get married under! Guess it doesn't really matter?
Let's see as time goes on if marriage as an institution gets changed to merely a way to play the system at its own level among the wiley masses, ie a new socially engineered (with the blessings of Uncle Sam) way to spread all the wealth around to everyone by law, or merely a way to document legally a state of economical convenience, again for the many so that they can better weather the storms of future tax burdens to come???.

Perhaps the attraction that love once had between any 2 Souls that led to marriages will, in the future, become less a reality, more a victim to economic necessity. There will be fewer and fewer older folks left to remember the days when true love between two people was more than just an expression of a solution to survive the states of growing economic hardship of greater masses of people affected! Guess we will have to wait and see what it is like in this country in 25 more years to get the answer to that.

I wonder how the expatriots, driven out of the country because their limited savings and social security cannot support them here, married or not, will fare under this new world order of overwhelming future taxation? The rule of a greater law is: We pay for everything sooner or later. 'Free' is the greatest illusion foisted upon the unwary masses for the benefit of those in power. "Free stuff"(as in 'unearned' = the wages of a future condition slavery.
If permanently residing in another country, and drawing their social security from the US, will the US tax the social security, their savings/investment income, and their working income if any and also force them (the poor ones who fled to a foreign country because their US Social Security won't cover even basic living expenses here), to pay out 1/3 of their already meager income for Obamacare even if they are not using it but are using out of country local medical facilities in the foreign country? Many who are fairly healthy do not return to the US for medical care?

ots of questions here, especially when the taxes here get to the Swedish level--it used to be 60% there, is it up to the 80% level now in Sweden yet? Is that our future here in the US? Then we will become the greatest exporter of retired refugees in the world, for when everyone is on the dole and all the business has moved out to foreign countries, there cannot income and money to continue to assuage the masses economic needs.. Haven't exactly heard about any countries especially excited about letting in any limited means American economic refugees in the future yet!

Funny how Republicans suddenly become tax and spend Marxists on this thread.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how Republicans suddenly become tax and
> spend Marxists on this thread.


Posting this makes more sense than you.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> You're saying what I've been saying for months.
> This isn't about "equal rights," it's about
> terminology.


I say the government has as much business selling marriage licenses as they do selling baptism licenses. Maybe people need a license to accept Jesus as their savior? I don't konw. Sounds a bit quid pro quo to me. A contract and a license might be in order.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2013 09:18PM by trogdor!.

Gays achieved a change to the law by judicial fiat rather than through the political process. This decision will change the institution of marriage in ways that will confound those who favored the decision. It will be have a costly impact while marriage itself will be further reduced to a meaningless gesture that is often pursued for only financial benefit.

JohnGalt338 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gays achieved a change to the law by judicial fiat
> rather than through the political process. This
> decision will change the institution of marriage
> in ways that will confound those who favored the
> decision. It will be have a costly impact while
> marriage itself will be further reduced to a
> meaningless gesture that is often pursued for only
> financial benefit.

Isn't that what is already is? I can go to the courthouse, buy a license and be married before a judge in an hour. In Las Vegas, it is even less meaningful, with a divorce lawyer right next door.

--------------------------------------

The Artist Formerly Known As GetM@th

JohnGalt338 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gays achieved a change to the law by judicial fiat
> rather than through the political process. This
> decision will change the institution of marriage
> in ways that will confound those who favored the
> decision. It will be have a costly impact while
> marriage itself will be further reduced to a
> meaningless gesture that is often pursued for only
> financial benefit.


They havent technically achieved anything yet other than the federal ban being removed. As of now its still up to the states to decide and since the Supreme Court kicked the can on Prop 8 they dont seem to have made up their mind on how they want to deal with that issue yet

If you don't think the gays haven't achieved anything you obviously are not following the line of gays going to the feds to get benefits for their "spouse."

JohnGalt338 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't think the gays haven't achieved
> anything you obviously are not following the line
> of gays going to the feds to get benefits for
> their "spouse."


All it did was remove the obstacle. They still have to find a state to marry them in order to be able to get it. The ruling had nothing to do with whether or not states can ban it. This has never been about benefits anyway, no ones trying to deny them that people just dont want it called marriage. A civil union would have passed more than 10 years ago if they went that route.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All it did was remove the obstacle. They still
> have to find a state to marry them in order to be
> able to get it. The ruling had nothing to do with
> whether or not states can ban it. This has never
> been about benefits anyway, no ones trying to deny
> them that people just dont want it called
> marriage. A civil union would have passed more
> than 10 years ago if they went that route.

As a nation, we learned in the 1950's that "separate but equal" doesn't fly.

True_Blue just woke up.

How nice it was while he was sleeping.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True_Blue just woke up.
>
> How nice it was while he was sleeping.

Thanks for caring.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 07:40AM by True Blue.

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True_Blue just woke up.
> >
> > How nice it was while he was sleeping.
>
> Thanks for caring.


You're welcome.

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All it did was remove the obstacle. They still
> > have to find a state to marry them in order to
> be
> > able to get it. The ruling had nothing to do
> with
> > whether or not states can ban it. This has
> never
> > been about benefits anyway, no ones trying to
> deny
> > them that people just dont want it called
> > marriage. A civil union would have passed more
> > than 10 years ago if they went that route.
>
> As a nation, we learned in the 1950's that
> "separate but equal" doesn't fly.

Dont belittle the civil rights movement by comparing gay marriage to it. You cant pick your race.

Getting married isnt a right either, but im sure youre more than willing to discriminate against other kinds of marriage

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dont belittle the civil rights movement by
> comparing gay marriage to it. You cant pick your
> race.

Blacks with light skin could choose to pass as White, Homosexuals can choose to pass as straight. Niether changes who the person is.

No, you cannot 'pick' your sexual orientation, although you can certainly pretend to.

> Getting married isnt a right either, but im sure
> youre more than willing to discriminate against
> other kinds of marriage.

Ah, yes, here is the 'other kinds of marriage' canard. It is a preposterous notion that I shall not dignify by discussing.

Our society and government bestows certain rights and privileges only upon married couples. Marriage, therefore, is a right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 03:28PM by True Blue.

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Blacks with light skin could choose to pass as
> White, Homosexuals can choose to pass as straight.
> Niether changes who the person is.
>
> No, you cannot 'pick' your sexual orientation,
> although you can certainly pretend to.

Sexual orientation is a choice or a product of environment, theres no gay gene. There is a black gene, or asian gene, or male/female gene.

> > Getting married isnt a right either, but im
> sure
> > youre more than willing to discriminate against
> > other kinds of marriage.
>
> Ah, yes, here is the 'other kinds of marriage'
> canard. It is a preposterous notion that I shall
> not dignify by discussing.

Because you dont have an answer even though I already provided it above just showing your just being a good liberal towing the line. If you cant explain why you believe what you do then youre nothing more than a mindless robot.

Theres a very simple logical way to not come off as a hypocrat but it involves independent thought and actually thinking.

> Our society and government bestows certain rights
> and privileges only upon married couples.
> Marriage, therefore, is a right.

Which would be given to a civil union nullifying your argument. Furthermore those rights are bestowed to encourage having children to keep the country going, gays cant do that which again nullifies your argument.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sexual orientation is a choice or a product of
> environment, theres no gay gene. There is a black
> gene, or asian gene, or male/female gene.

"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Argument nullified.

> Which would be given to a civil union nullifying
> your argument.

Give up the 'separate but equal shtick. You're embarrassing yourself. Argument nullified.

> Furthermore those rights are bestowed to encourage
> having children to keep the country going, gays
> cant do that which again nullifies your argument.

So barren hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? Same sex couples can adopt, same as hetero couples. Argument nullified.

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sexual orientation is a choice or a product of
> > environment, theres no gay gene. There is a
> black
> > gene, or asian gene, or male/female gene.
>
> "Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or
> some other biological mechanism is ever found, one
> thing is clear: The environment a child grows up
> in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men
> gay. Two of the most convincing studies have
> proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men
> has a genetic cause."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
>
> Argument nullified.
>
> > Which would be given to a civil union
> nullifying
> > your argument.
>
> Give up the 'separate but equal shtick. You're
> embarrassing yourself. Argument nullified.
>
> > Furthermore those rights are bestowed to
> encourage
> > having children to keep the country going, gays
> > cant do that which again nullifies your
> argument.
>
> So barren hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to
> marry? Same sex couples can adopt, same as hetero
> couples. Argument nullified.

So why do you like fudge better than pussy, Blew Boy?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

"So barren hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? Same sex couples can adopt, same as hetero couples. Argument nullified."

No, they just wait until they're 45 to have kids and realize after the half dozen abortions they had in their 20s and 30s that nothing's going to happen so they spend $10k+ for a Chinese or Honduran or Guatamalan or whatever flavor of the day foreign kid. All is good in the world.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why do you like fudge better than pussy, Blew
> Boy?

I don't. I'm just a fan of civil rights.

Tray von Martin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, they just wait until they're 45 to have kids
> and realize after the half dozen abortions they
> had in their 20s and 30s that nothing's going to
> happen so they spend $10k+ for a Chinese or
> Honduran or Guatamalan or whatever flavor of the
> day foreign kid. All is good in the world.

Not a big fan of adoption are you, Tray?

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sexual orientation is a choice or a product of
> > environment, theres no gay gene. There is a
> black
> > gene, or asian gene, or male/female gene.
>
> "Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or
> some other biological mechanism is ever found, one
> thing is clear: The environment a child grows up
> in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men
> gay. Two of the most convincing studies have
> proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men
> has a genetic cause."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay
>
> Argument nullified.
>
> > Which would be given to a civil union
> nullifying
> > your argument.
>
> Give up the 'separate but equal shtick. You're
> embarrassing yourself. Argument nullified.
>
> > Furthermore those rights are bestowed to
> encourage
> > having children to keep the country going, gays
> > cant do that which again nullifies your
> argument.
>
> So barren hetero couples shouldn't be allowed to
> marry? Same sex couples can adopt, same as hetero
> couples. Argument nullified.


You had the chance at having an adult discussion, you failed miserably. No reason to waste anymore time and someone so stupid they cant even figure out the answer when its in the thread theyre spewing talking points all over. We get it asking you to think it too much, I apologize for expecting you to use your brain.

Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You had the chance at having an adult discussion,
> you failed miserably. No reason to waste anymore
> time and someone so stupid they cant even figure
> out the answer when its in the thread theyre
> spewing talking points all over. We get it asking
> you to think it too much, I apologize for
> expecting you to use your brain.

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! I have no logical argument to refute True Blue's assertions! I suck! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

True Blue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You had the chance at having an adult
> discussion,
> > you failed miserably. No reason to waste
> anymore
> > time and someone so stupid they cant even
> figure
> > out the answer when its in the thread theyre
> > spewing talking points all over. We get it
> asking
> > you to think it too much, I apologize for
> > expecting you to use your brain.
>
> Translation:
> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! I have
> no logical argument to refute True Blue's
> assertions! I suck!
> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Hi ferfux, why dont you use your screen name anymore?