Gay marriage (again) (4 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

But we're talking about financing marriage. To be gay is not a choice, to marry is, hence my correction on your wrong analogy. Look: "I CHOOSE to be single and am ok with paying higher, they CHOOSE to not marry the other sex and should be ok with it as well.", that's logically fallacious. You choose to be single so you pay higher, if a gay chooses to be single he'll have to pay higher. You choose to marry, you finance your marriage, a gay chooses to marry, he also must be given the right to finance his marriage. Nothing should separate the two of you.



Take a look back at the last two pages and read what you have written. Leftist & idealist, mullah, I'm sure I'm neither. Did you even try to refute a point or all you are doing is taking an arrogant attitude? And funnily enough, it's you in the end who's complaining about personal jabs. Get down off your high horse, I like and respect you a lot but my opinion of you with regard to degrading others' points without actually trying to discuss things hasn't changed ever since the first time we had a debate here. Not that you care, of course, but it makes it harder for me to learn from our debates.

what?? single as in NOT married, remember the argument here is if gay marriage is legally valid, if you already start with the assumption it already is why are we talking.
As for leftist idealist, most espouse leftist ideas, why should they take offense to that, thats like martin calling me a capitalist, i wear my badge proudly. I never called you a mullah i said you sounded like one with your use of 'must'. As for the high horse talk, as soon as i posted on here all i got were antagonistic replies, i was jumped and i simply replied in kind.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

The irony in the U.S. is that a good majority are less against the financial or spousal benefits being given to gays. Most of their hangups are based on religious dogmas and use of the word. Essentially, a lot of the public objection seems based on the idea of someone having a legally recognized marriage and having the law rub it in the face of the religious beliefs of a church.

To that effect, Abel is kind of the inverse of the majority of public opinion on the subject here in the U.S.

 

[IliveForJuve]

what?? single as in NOT married, remember the argument here is if gay marriage is legally valid, if you already start with the assumption it already is why are we talking.
As for leftist idealist, most espouse leftist ideas, why should they take offense to that, thats like martin calling me a capitalist, i wear my badge proudly. I never called you a mullah i said you sounded like one with your use of 'must'. As for the high horse talk, as soon as i posted on here all i got were antagonistic replies, i was jumped and i simply replied in kind.

Well, you're a fucking bigot.






















I keed, negrito

 

[Zlatan]

 

[Elvin]

First world gay problems...

 

[king Ale]

what?? single as in NOT married, remember the argument here is if gay marriage is legally valid, if you already start with the assumption it already is why are we talking.

This doesn't make your analogy look any better though We are discussing what needs to be done regarding same sex marriage and its consequences rather than how things currently are. My point is that there should be no difference between treating a (married/not married) gay couple and that of a heterosexual one.

First world gay problems...

Yup, we simply execute them in the third world

 

[Linebreak]

Question:

Why is marriage a legally protected union in every country?

 

[Nzoric]

Question:

Why is marriage a legally protected union in every country?

ive been digging through the books to answer that one, but it seems that marriage in one form or another has always been present as a protected union..

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

@Linebreak Enjoy: http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=237

 

[swag]

@Linebreak Enjoy: http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=237

Seems tame compared to Mormonism.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Well yeah, that's the hardest of hardcore.

 

[swag]

Let's see ...

Eve had a deck vs. magic underpants...

I think I have to go with the underpants on this one.

No wonder why the Mormons were financially supporting Cali Prop 8.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Magic underpants

 

[Enron]

Yeah, Mormons is bullet proof thanks to the BVDs.:vinny:

---------- Post added 16.05.2012 at 02:04 ----------

The irony in the U.S. is that a good majority are less against the financial or spousal benefits being given to gays. Most of their hangups are based on religious dogmas and use of the word. Essentially, a lot of the public objection seems based on the idea of someone having a legally recognized marriage and having the law rub it in the face of the religious beliefs of a church.

To that effect, Abel is kind of the inverse of the majority of public opinion on the subject here in the U.S.

The way I feel is simple.

If you're against gay marriage simply because it's gay, then you're just a faggot*.



*Eminem 2002.

 

[ALC]

I like how you put a star next to the word faggot. Because they are all stars! Superstars!

edit: just saw the rest of your post oops

 

[Enron]

I like how you put a star next to the word faggot. Because they are all stars! Superstars!

edit: just saw the rest of your post oops

I thought someone could accuse me of quoting 8 Mile.

 

[ALC]

It wouldn't be me, I'm horrible at remembering lines from movies. Especially ones I haven't seen in a while. Unless it was really funny or people repeated it, like the one from Hangover with the airplane masturbation.

 

[Fred]

which one is that?

 

[Elvin]

Yup, we simply execute them in the third world

They don't exist in the third world, even if they do they have far more important shit to worry about than legalizing mutual cocksucking with their partners

 

[Nedvěd]

Atta boy Obama. Now legalize weed and be a good president for once.