Bush: Marriage for heterosexuals only

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica


First you say that gays are marrying for love, then you say healthcare and other benefits associated with marriage. Why don't you marry your father? Don't you love him?
You oppose marriages to animals and objects because of their inability to get the groceries? Animals surely love you back. And how do you know for certain if the two sides of the marriage love each other?
Basically you keep saying they are sentient, animals aren't. A person in a coma is but that doesn't end the marriage so this argument is also inaccurate.
I explain clearly why there is a difference between a couple that chooses not to have children and a gay couple.
Look who's talking about backing an unintelligent argument. Someone that wholeheartedly supports a relationship that if it weren't for noble heteros like myself, would run the human race to extinction.

Why do men and women who love each other get married then? Medical breakthru's have resulted in numerous homosexuals and their partners getting pregnant, getting a surrogate or adopting.

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Amirtallica


First you say that gays are marrying for love, then you say healthcare and other benefits associated with marriage. Why don't you marry your father? Don't you love him?
You oppose marriages to animals and objects because of their inability to get the groceries? Animals surely love you back. And how do you know for certain if the two sides of the marriage love each other?
Basically you keep saying they are sentient, animals aren't. A person in a coma is but that doesn't end the marriage so this argument is also inaccurate.
I explain clearly why there is a difference between a couple that chooses not to have children and a gay couple.
Look who's talking about backing an unintelligent argument. Someone that wholeheartedly supports a relationship that if it weren't for noble heteros like myself, would run the human race to extinction.

Why do men and women who love each other get married then? Medical breakthru's have resulted in numerous homosexuals and their partners getting pregnant, getting a surrogate or adopting.

They marry for numerous reasons, the most important of which is to have, and raise their offspring. Unfortunately lots of people are getting married for financial reasons too, but the need for marriage arouse from sharing responsobilities in raising children and insuring the future of mankind.

BTW these are all my opinions and I may be wrong. No need to get hostile, we are having a debate here.
I've never heard of gay couples getting pregnant (not if they didn't cheat).

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.

So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.

Christ, I don't even know where to start.

How is a married couple that chooses not to have children different than a gay couple with regard to the continuation of human existence? Why even get married if you're not going to have kids, right? Isn't their relationship just as shallow and meaningless as that of the gay couple according to your logic?

You can drop the table and chair argument too if you don't want to make yourself look any less intelligent than you already have. They're not sentient. They don't love you back, they don't get the groceries. People get married because they love each other and want to solidify that love into (hopefully) permanence. Kids may or may not enter the equation. By your logic, the gay couple and the childless couple are on equal moral footing. It has nothing to do with population control; gays have never been a factor in that nor will they ever be. They have always existed and will always continue to exist. If they were going to snuff out society, they'd have done it by now since humans have been around for quite some time AFAIK.

One other question I have for you. There are already gay people out there in the world, right? They're living their lives, going about their daily business.....some of them are even *gasp* in commited relationships. How does allowing them to marry legally really change anything? I mean, they already exist, they're sure as hell not going to have kids, so in reality you're just putting a different label on a committed relationship between two men or two women. The only real change (and one you interestingly haven't bothered to mention) is that of healthcare benefits and such.

First you say that gays are marrying for love, then you say healthcare and other benefits associated with marriage. Why don't you marry your father? Don't you love him?
You oppose marriages to animals and objects because of their inability to get the groceries? Animals surely love you back. And how do you know for certain if the two sides of the marriage love each other?
Basically you keep saying they are sentient, animals aren't. A person in a coma is but that doesn't end the marriage so this argument is also inaccurate.
I explain clearly why there is a difference between a couple that chooses not to have children and a gay couple.
Look who's talking about backing an unintelligent argument. Someone that wholeheartedly supports a relationship that if it weren't for noble heteros like myself, would run the human race to extinction.

Can you not present an argument without resorting to the absurd for just a minute, please. Is that really so much to ask? We're not talking about animals, my Dad, a chair, a person in a coma, lego blocks, a Volkswagen, ball-point pens, or sea cucumbers. Gay people want to get married for the same reasons hetero people do is the bottom line. They can even have kids via adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers.....which of course further throws your "gay holocaust" theory out the window.

You're still avoiding my question about how a gay couple is any different than a hetero couple who choose not to have kids in light of all the stuff I pointed out in my last post.

And "noble heteros" like you, who actively discriminate against their fellow man on such a ridiculous basis, are anything but.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Not as Dangerous as the Ridiculous Religious Right and their Boy AG John Assclown..err Asscroft!

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Man would have still evolved from chimps.

Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance.

With 6 billion humans n the planet I don't think we have to worry about their not being enough to carry on the species

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Amirtallica


First you say that gays are marrying for love, then you say healthcare and other benefits associated with marriage. Why don't you marry your father? Don't you love him?
You oppose marriages to animals and objects because of their inability to get the groceries? Animals surely love you back. And how do you know for certain if the two sides of the marriage love each other?
Basically you keep saying they are sentient, animals aren't. A person in a coma is but that doesn't end the marriage so this argument is also inaccurate.
I explain clearly why there is a difference between a couple that chooses not to have children and a gay couple.
Look who's talking about backing an unintelligent argument. Someone that wholeheartedly supports a relationship that if it weren't for noble heteros like myself, would run the human race to extinction.

Why do men and women who love each other get married then? Medical breakthru's have resulted in numerous homosexuals and their partners getting pregnant, getting a surrogate or adopting.

They marry for numerous reasons, the most important of which is to have, and raise their offspring. Unfortunately lots of people are getting married for financial reasons too, but the need for marriage arouse from sharing responsobilities in raising children and insuring the future of mankind.

BTW these are all my opinions and I may be wrong. No need to get hostile, we are having a debate here.
I've never heard of gay couples getting pregnant (not if they didn't cheat).

By your definition then 2 people getting together to start and raise a family, these 2 people could be 2 men or 2 women, just because they don't fertilize an egg does not make them ineligible to be parents. Say if you found a woman, fell in love, got married and then tried for years to start a family and had no offspring. Would you toss aside the wife and try to find another one or would you try other routes like homosexual couples are doing?

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please go into detail as to your assertion "gays are dangerous"...

And, ask yourself this question: Would you be able to cope with real life if you couldn't rely on a metaphorical fairy tale you read in a book?

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Can you not present an argument without resorting to the absurd for just a minute, please. Is that really so much to ask? We're not talking about animals, my Dad, a chair, a person in a coma, lego blocks, a Volkswagen, ball-point pens, or sea cucumbers. Gay people want to get married for the same reasons hetero people do is the bottom line. They can even have kids via adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers.....which of course further throws your "gay holocaust" theory out the window.

You're still avoiding my question about how a gay couple is any different than a hetero couple who choose not to have kids in light of all the stuff I pointed out in my last post.

And "noble heteros" like you, who actively discriminate against their fellow man on such a ridiculous basis, are anything but.

I really laughed at the first paragraph, but then I cried. Because I know the next generation of people like you will be repeating that exept they will take the animals out and this thread will be about another President Bush: Marriage for humans only. And soon every one of those absurd objects will also be eligable marriage material. We act so civilized and intelligent yet there are those among us that if it were up to them, none of this would exist.

I didn't avoid your question. You refused to acknowledge that I responded to it: "I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings."

Wait a minute, lets get something clear here. What are you calling discrimination? If I'm not allowed to play in the WNBA because I'm a man is that discrimination also?

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please go into detail as to your assertion "gays are dangerous"...

And, ask yourself this question: Would you be able to cope with real life if you couldn't rely on a metaphorical fairy tale you read in a book?

Let's just say I don't know a species of fudge packers that isn't extinct. Maye they are harmless in the surface, but they are to humanity.
Just like Niel Armstrong said:"That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."
Gay marriages are a step backwards.

 

[Amirtallica]

By your definition then 2 people getting together to start and raise a family, these 2 people could be 2 men or 2 women, just because they don't fertilize an egg does not make them ineligible to be parents. Say if you found a woman, fell in love, got married and then tried for years to start a family and had no offspring. Would you toss aside the wife and try to find another one or would you try other routes like homosexual couples are doing?

This same analogy could be applied to a man and an animal.
A man and an animal aren't supposed to be able to have children, but if they can do it, should they do it?
Having children is ultimately between a man and a woman anyway you look at it. Even if there is an external egg or sperm involved.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Can you not present an argument without resorting to the absurd for just a minute, please. Is that really so much to ask? We're not talking about animals, my Dad, a chair, a person in a coma, lego blocks, a Volkswagen, ball-point pens, or sea cucumbers. Gay people want to get married for the same reasons hetero people do is the bottom line. They can even have kids via adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers.....which of course further throws your "gay holocaust" theory out the window.

You're still avoiding my question about how a gay couple is any different than a hetero couple who choose not to have kids in light of all the stuff I pointed out in my last post.

And "noble heteros" like you, who actively discriminate against their fellow man on such a ridiculous basis, are anything but.

I really laughed at the first paragraph, but then I cried. Because I know the next generation of people like you will be repeating that exept they will take the animals out and this thread will be about another President Bush: Marriage for humans only. And soon every one of those absurd objects will also be eligable marriage material. We act so civilized and intelligent yet there are those among us that if it were up to them, none of this would exist.

Right.....and the sky is falling. We've been over this Antonin.

I didn't avoid your question. You refused to acknowledge that I responded to it: "I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings."

And I rebutted that already you moron. Read the thread, I'm not typing it twice.

Wait a minute, lets get something clear here. What are you calling discrimination? If I'm not allowed to play in the WNBA because I'm a man is that discrimination also?

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Straw man. Try again.

Actually, every single argument you've put forth has been a straw man, come to think of it. Not very creative, are we?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please go into detail as to your assertion "gays are dangerous"...

And, ask yourself this question: Would you be able to cope with real life if you couldn't rely on a metaphorical fairy tale you read in a book?

Let's just say I don't know a species of fudge packers that isn't extinct. Maye they are harmless in the surface, but they are to humanity.
Just like Niel Armstrong said:"That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."
Gay marriages are a step backwards.

And yet gay people have continued to exist as long as man has. In an amazing ironic twist, it turns out these gay people are actually the product of a heterosexual union in most cases. I thought you said you guys were noble, and here you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction! Horrors!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

By your definition then 2 people getting together to start and raise a family, these 2 people could be 2 men or 2 women, just because they don't fertilize an egg does not make them ineligible to be parents. Say if you found a woman, fell in love, got married and then tried for years to start a family and had no offspring. Would you toss aside the wife and try to find another one or would you try other routes like homosexual couples are doing?

This same analogy could be applied to a man and an animal.
A man and an animal aren't supposed to be able to have children, but if they can do it, should they do it?
Having children is ultimately between a man and a woman anyway you look at it. Even if there is an external egg or sperm involved.

How do you explain him link

Fertilizing an egg is between man and woman, raising a child is between two loving parents. What about all the deadbeat dad's that stand up their kids and don't pay child support? would the child be better off with this father figure or a gay and loving partner for their mom that will take them places and spend time with them?

 

[konichiwa]

Let's just say I don't know a species of fudge packers that isn't extinct.

What a fabulous opening. First of all, last I checked, "fudgepacker" is not a species. Not to mention the fact that "fudgepackers" have been around as long as heterosexuals. Try again?

Maye they are harmless in the surface, but they are to humanity. Gay marriages are a step backwards.

What it sounds like to me is if you had your way, homosexuality in and of itself would be a crime. Correct? Furthermore, as Fausto suggested, anyone who chooses not to wed or procreate should be held sub judice too, right? Not to mention those who are unable to procreate. Oh and don't forget the handicapped, as no one would want to procreate with them either.

(Sounds a bit like everyone's favorite fascist agenda, eh?)

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

Easy, hotrod...if you 'turn the tables', what are you going to have to go with that chair?

LOL, that had me rolling.

 

[DealMonkey]

Give it up Amirtallica, no one's buying your retarded theories about gays. You don't like it? Fine. Don't be gay... You don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't marry any gay people. Otherwise, what's the big deal?

 

[Drift3r]

Well gays don't feel love for their partners, it's all about heathen sex with them. They could never have the same emotions we straight people have when it comes to loving another human being.

Ahhhhhh....were would the liberal PC agenda be without people like Bush and his friends creating and pushing in a culture of victimization.

As far as the poll is going on CNN, well it's currently.....


"Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman? "

Yes - 32% - 219330 votes


No - 68% - 472590 votes

Total: 691933 votes

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Compassionate conservative Bush wants to punish sin by using the Constitution . . . I wonder which sins will be next?

homosexuality

The 10 big ones according to the Old Testament