How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

[poet]

I'll out live you queer. And no, TX will never legalize your sham.

Really? Bet you can't prove it. You're already having to look over your shoulder, for previous outrageous statements. Texas will recognize gay marriage in 2 years.
Sham? If anyone's marriage is a sham, it's yours. A closet queen and a hooker. LOL.

 

[poet]

He's also insinuating homosexual rape, which he's been doing with increasing frequency. He's one deviant sicko, for sure.

Aww, bitch. How you gon' rape the willing? LOL
You want deviant sicko? Try the nearest mirror.

 

[Onceler]

Did you miss the context of Jarod's post? It was historical, going back 25 years and older. Perhaps you should go back to ancient Greece or similar failed experiment, but I don't think you'll find anything there either.

Besides, Massachusetts was an activist court move, not legislative, and California was a major in a gay city breaking the law. Whenever the people speak, gay marriage loses.

You said that the definition NEVER included two men, or two women. Do you not remember saying that?

And it's hilarious that you didn't realize there were same sex marriages previously. It doesn't matter one iota what led to them - they were recognized as such, and defined as such.

This thread went bad for you very, very quickly....

 

[poet]

The definition has never included two men, or two women.

It does now. LOL

 

[DamnYankee]

Really, you are lacking in an understanding of history...it has not always included one man and one woman.

You are likley correct about it not having included two men or two women, but why should that prevent it from including it now? The defination has always been changing, evolving.

Obviously it's you who doesn't understand history, because it has always included one man and one woman. Perhaps you can help out Onceler and cite evidence to the contrary.

 

[DamnYankee]

It does now. LOL

Not in TX, LOL.

 

[poet]

Yet in the past it has always included one man and one woman, and has never included two men, two women, or a man and a tree.

I'm friggin' married, you moron...the question is one of legality and acknowledgement by the state and the nation. The fact that the state doesn't recognize my marriage, doesn't invalidate or negate the fact that I'm married in my mind, and with my body and soul. One day it will be recognized...the state and the union will have caught up with reality.

 

[Jarod]

Did you miss the context of Jarod's post? It was historical, going back 25 years and older. Perhaps you should go back to ancient Greece or similar failed experiment, but I don't think you'll find anything there either.

Besides, Massachusetts was an activist court move, not legislative, and California was a major in a gay city breaking the law. Whenever the people speak, gay marriage loses.

Why does it matter what history has done? Untill the 1960 it did not include an equal legal relationship, now it does.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm friggin' married, you moron...the question is one of legality and acknowledgement by the state and the nation. The fact that the state doesn't recognize my marriage, doesn't invalidate or negate the fact that I'm married in my mind, and with my body and soul. One day it will be recognized...the state and the union will have caught up with reality.

You're not married, queer. Show us your license. You're living a lie with that just like your religion.

 

[poet]

Did you miss the context of Jarod's post? It was historical, going back 25 years and older. Perhaps you should go back to ancient Greece or similar failed experiment, but I don't think you'll find anything there either.

Besides, Massachusetts was an activist court move, not legislative, and California was a major in a gay city breaking the law. Whenever the people speak, gay marriage loses.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

 

[poet]

Obviously it's you who doesn't understand history, because it has always included one man and one woman. Perhaps you can help out Onceler and cite evidence to the contrary.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

 

[Jarod]

You're not married, queer. Show us your license. You're living a lie with that just like your religion.

You dont need a liscence to be married, you dont need a liscence to be a Christian, you dont need a liscence to have kids. We have God given inalienable rights.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why does it matter what history has done? Untill the 1960 it did not include an equal legal relationship, now it does.

History gives us a road map to the future; you do what has worked and reject what has not. Prior to 1960 it did include equal legal relationship, perhaps there were some states that didn't require that.

 

[Onceler]

History gives us a road map to the future; you do what has worked and reject what has not. Prior to 1960 it did include equal legal relationship, perhaps there were some states that didn't require that.

But you said it was never defined as same sex. You didn't say anything about "prior to ___ date"....

 

[poet]

You're not married, queer. Show us your license. You're living a lie with that just like your religion.

I have a certificate and I was married in a public mass ceremony by a Justice of the Peace...the gay provocateur of Houston, Ray Hill (look him up) , back in 2003....witnessed by attorneys and professionals, alike.
Who are you to tell someone that they're living a lie, when you are the fakest of Christians, and a bona fide racist, homophobe and bigot?
My religion and the tenets of my faith are not up for discussion...certainly not with riff raff.

 

[Jarod]

History gives us a road map to the future; you do what has worked and reject what has not. Prior to 1960 it did include equal legal relationship, perhaps there were some states that didn't require that.

Wrong, untill the 60's generally all property of a married couple belonged to the Husband.

Things change, history leads to the future, but that is not an excuse not to change things. Some things dont work, limiting marriage to hetrosexual couples no longer works. So we should change it. It does not fit with the evoloved egalitarian ideas about accepting those who are different than us.

 

[DamnYankee]

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The husband and wife are in fact two men.

Hilarious. You see gay in everything. There's probably several different interpretations for this art. Do you have any written evidence?

 

[DamnYankee]

But you said it was never defined as same sex. You didn't say anything about "prior to ___ date"....

I was engaging Jarod in conversation within his historical context.

 

[Onceler]

I was engaging Jarod in conversation within his historical context.

Lame; not even good spin.

And, as your later post indicated, you weren't even aware that there were same sex marriages recently.

Hilarious.

 

[DamnYankee]

I have a certificate and I was married in a public mass ceremony by a Justice of the Peace...the gay provocateur of Houston, Ray Hill (look him up) , back in 2003....witnessed by attorneys and professionals, alike.
Who are you to tell someone that they're living a lie, when you are the fakest of Christians, and a bona fide racist, homophobe and bigot?
My religion and the tenets of my faith are not up for discussion...certainly not with riff raff.

I can make up a certificate that states that you are a racist, vaginaphobe, rapist and bigot, and like your certificate will carry no legal weight within the municipality that you reside. Try taking your "certificate" to a hospital to obtain visitation rights, or an employer to obtain your partner's health care benefits, or to a probate court to obtain inheritance rights. Aren't those the issues that you gay marriage advocates champion? Suddenly they aren't important now, but a piece of paper is.