How the LGBT made this soon to be short lived mockery of marriage
- Thread starter David Jeffrey Spetch
- Start date
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The government should recognize legal civil unions, be they heterosexual or homosexual, equally.
Marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government at all. Leave that word to the colloquial vernacular and the religious types. There's no need for it in the law.
Marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government at all. Leave that word to the colloquial vernacular and the religious types. There's no need for it in the law.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology
Definitions
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] Even within Western culture, "definitions of marriage have careened from one extreme to another and everywhere in between" (as Evan Gerstmann has put it).[7]
Relation recognized by custom or law
In The History of Human Marriage (1922), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]
Legitimacy of offspring
The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[10] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer people of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[11]
In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[12]
Economic anthropologist Duran Bell has criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[6]
Collection of rights
Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. In 1955 article in Man, Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures. Those rights, according to Leach, included:
"To establish a legal father of a woman's children.
To establish a legal mother of a man's children.
To give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality.
To give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality.
To give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic and other labour services.
To give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's domestic and other labour services.
To give the husband partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the wife.
To give the wife partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the husband.
To establish a joint fund of property – a partnership – for the benefit of the children of the marriage.
To establish a socially significant 'relationship of affinity' between the husband and his wife's brothers."[13]
Right of sexual access
In a 1997 article in Current Anthropology, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers. (See Nuer "ghost marriage")[6]
Definitions
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage in an attempt to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] Even within Western culture, "definitions of marriage have careened from one extreme to another and everywhere in between" (as Evan Gerstmann has put it).[7]
Relation recognized by custom or law
In The History of Human Marriage (1922), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[8] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[9]
Legitimacy of offspring
The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[10] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer people of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances (the ghost marriage), Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[11]
In an analysis of marriage among the Nayar, a polyandrous society in India, Gough found that the group lacked a husband role in the conventional sense; that unitary role in the west was divided between a non-resident "social father" of the woman's children, and her lovers who were the actual procreators. None of these men had legal rights to the woman's child. This forced Gough to disregard sexual access as a key element of marriage and to define it in terms of legitimacy of offspring alone: marriage is "a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum."[12]
Economic anthropologist Duran Bell has criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. He argued that a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular in societies where illegitimacy has no other legal or social implications for a child other than the mother being unmarried.[6]
Collection of rights
Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. In 1955 article in Man, Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures. Those rights, according to Leach, included:
"To establish a legal father of a woman's children.
To establish a legal mother of a man's children.
To give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality.
To give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality.
To give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic and other labour services.
To give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's domestic and other labour services.
To give the husband partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the wife.
To give the wife partial or total control over property belonging or potentially accruing to the husband.
To establish a joint fund of property – a partnership – for the benefit of the children of the marriage.
To establish a socially significant 'relationship of affinity' between the husband and his wife's brothers."[13]
Right of sexual access
In a 1997 article in Current Anthropology, Duran Bell describes marriage as "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." In referring to "men in severalty", Bell is referring to corporate kin groups such as lineages which, in having paid brideprice, retain a right in a woman's offspring even if her husband (a lineage member) deceases (Levirate marriage). In referring to "men (male or female)", Bell is referring to women within the lineage who may stand in as the "social fathers" of the wife's children born of other lovers. (See Nuer "ghost marriage")[6]
evince
Truthmatters
bingo
if they want the name back that is fine
they can have it
civil unions as a name is fine
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
First of all you show us a quote where I claimed marriage began out of love. I'v seen this tactic from intellectual cowards before, force words into someone's mouth then start arguing with yourself about it because you have no validity.
Out of all of the irrelevant crap you spew, still none of your irrelevant spew contests with even so much as a shred of validity the fact that thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves that marriage is about honouring the significance of the unity of the one sexual union that stands alone above all others, the one sexual union to which we all owe our existence and that one sexual union is quite obviously and exclusively heterosexual unions, go figure. Try actually reading the composition beginning this very thread before continuing to make a deliberately ignorant ass out of yourself I advise.
evince
Truthmatters
honor?
it was not an honor
it was a way to force MEN to financially support their progeny idiot
I wont let you have my daughter unless you are bound to a contract
Why does daddy walk her down the isle idiot
^
Homeschooled Bible thumper. So obvious!
Fag marriage = your marriage.
And not a fucking thing you can do about it!
So Trump has never been married. He was not honoring his marriages at all. Over 60 percent of marriages fail and many more are cohabitating in misery. Sure sounds like an honorable union, doesn't it? We owe our existence to fucking. It Neanderthals did not jump each others bones, your phony marriage stories would not exist. We would not be around to read them.
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
^
Homeschooled Bible thumper. So obvious!
Fag marriage = your marriage.
And not a fucking thing you can do about it!
I've been sharing facts exposing lies and deceptions to restore marriage to a respectable state and you not liking it doesn't hide the fact that I have been and will gladly continue to do something about restoring marriage to a respectable state until it is restored to a respectable state no matter if a selfish interest group of compulsive obsessive liars like the LGBT likes it or not. Forcing sickly lies through legislation only accounts o a hill of beans to a bunch of liars attempting to treat society like shit because thy do not even want to accept themselves for what they themselves are in he firs place. Thanks to exclusively heterosexual unions we even exist and yet if it were up to homosexual unions to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective. No lies forced through legislation etc. will ever change the fact that homosexual unions never did come close and never will come close to equaling heterosexual unions and again, no matter how many lies and deceptions some selfish inters group attempts to force through legislation etc.
You didn't even read the composition beginning this very thread did you, because this quote if from that very composition
"Then they attempted the claim that heterosexuals disrespect marriage through divorce, but divorce is just ending a marriage and quite obviously doesn't disrespect that marriage is about honouring the significance of heterosexual unions. "
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
I already covered your bs with the greatest of ease right here in the very composition beginning this very thread. A piece of cake indeed.
Heterosexual couples were brought together to be married for many different reasons over the centuries / millenniums: Such as bettering diplomatic and commercial relations. Such as to keep property in the family. Such as a man impregnated a woman. Such as it was forced because of ensuring an heir. Such as it was because a male had to marry more than one female so they all could work together to sustain a family. Such as it was because of arranging marriages for the strategic assembly of land. Such as establishing alliances among kings. Such as marrying off their own wives to establish alliances with other ruling men. Such as a political arrangement between two families who wished to seal their ties as well merge assets. Such as because someone born with a penis and someone born with a vagina wanted to be together and their parents consented. Such as to arrange the passing on of a plot of land to family of which adjacent family marriages could combine plots from both families. Such as the religious of the 16th century began to promote same religion to next generation. Such as young people born with the opposite sex genital having the freedom to promote their choice union based upon love. Such as mutual sexual attraction of those born with the opposite sex genital.
The one thing that never changed over the centuries / millenniums was the fact that marriage was always in honour of the significance of heterosexual unions being recognized for what they are, as significantly above any other kind of union for one obvious reason which the LGBT never once made mention of. This is because quite obviously it is thanks to heterosexual unions that we all even exist and not homosexual unions. The LGBT completely ignored the fact that hundreds / thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves beyond any shadow of doubt that marriage is always about honouring the significance of the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we all awe our very existence thus honours exclusively heterosexual unions hence the significance of what marriage has always been about with hundreds / thousands of years of proof of this very simple fact that the LGBT always cowered from so much as acknowledging. To them it was obviously all about making a mockery of marriage with their lies and deceptions because they do not want to accept the significant difference of heterosexual unions to that of other sexual unions. This gets better. While thousands of years prove what marriage is all about, they ignored that and they instead attempted to claim the obvious lie that marriage was about the reason why heterosexual couples came together to be married (as mentioned in the previous paragraph) and not the actual significance of marriage always being about honouring heterosexual unions. The lie, the deception.
The reason obviously that marriage has never been about homosexual unions is because homosexual unions factually do not even come close to comparing to the significance of heterosexual unions because the fact remains that if it were up to homosexual unions to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective and there is quite obviously not anything worth honouring in that. They do not want to accept the fact that homosexual unions do not even come close to comparing to the significance of the one sexual unity that we all owe our very existence too and that unity is heterosexual unions.
For years the LGBT tried to make marriage about their lies, and when they failed, they tried to make it about more lies, and they did this again and again and again as I will share many examples of this coming up. Pay attention because if you do, you are about to become a master on not only the foundation of this primary issue, but how to plow through many LGBT lies and deceptions on your own . The following proves that they didn't care that thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves what marriage is in honour of and created for.
As they attempted forcing the following lies and deceptions over the years I was exposing their lies and deceptions as they were doing it to prepare our elected and appointed officials and people in general on many online political, news, social forums and message boards sites on how to deal with their lies and deceptions. Over the years I found myself being banned because I was being slandered by LGBT and their pathetic lies. So began the increased insanity of their so called liberal policies to prevent the public from exposing their pathetic lies and deceptions in North America years ago. Here is some of the other pathetic rhetoric that they tried which I always bested with ease.
They tried such rhetoric as, if people of different races can get married then so should same sex couples yet ignoring the fact that marriage between different racial variations of human were always about honouring heterosexual unions because thanks to heterosexual unions we even exist and therefor is worth acknowledging with the distinction and honour.
They tried to claim that marriage is about consenting adults, yet they evaded the fact that it is among heterosexual adults (unfortunately for some, paedophilia marriages occur in some messed up countries of which people of such countries have been migrating to Canada in mass numbers recently with the liberals arms wide open even though these people have revealed to ignore host countries laws as their numbers increase. But this too was always the "heterosexual" version of paedophilia)
They tried to claim that marriage is about love, yet again they evaded the fact that not everyone gets married out of love and for those who do are those born with the opposite sex genital that the other is born with aka heterosexual unions.
They attempted to claim that if heterosexuals who can't have children can get married then so should homosexual sex partners while completed evading the fact that heterosexual couples who can't have children & getting married doesn't disrespect that marriage is about honouring the significance of heterosexual unions.
Then they attempted the claim that heterosexuals disrespect marriage through divorce, but divorce is just ending a marriage and quite obviously doesn't disrespect that marriage is about honouring the significance of heterosexual unions.
They attempted to claim that cheating on one's spouse disrespects marriage, yet even that doesn't disrespect that marriage is about honouring heterosexual unions. It just disrespects the spouse which can wind up in divorce.
I am not kidding you when I say they tried every lie and deception to make a mockery of marriage and failed at every turn. It obviously wasn't ever about LGBT having a legitimate claim, it was about the LGBT defecating on the meaning of marriage with every lie and deception that they could possibly fathom compulsively and obsessively. By then I was on a fraction of the sites I was previously on because of these liars and their slander whining hater bigot homophobe to management of every site every time they realized their lies didn't stand a chance against the facts I share like they did work against the general public. These liars also threatened elected officials with using the main stream media to slander them with their lies to try and hide their lack of validity while painting the unaware public with such rhetoric as anyone who is against their lies is a homophobe, a bigot, a hater etc. So our officials became cowards and sell outs. It seems as though every year in the past 17 years I have been doing this I have been respecting our officials less and less until now I have next to nothing for respect for our elected and appointed officials on Federal, Provincial and even Municipal levels but where else do you go to get rid of the injustices with facts that expose lies and deceptions on the foundations of primary issues?!
They claimed discrimination which is another lie because everyone has the right to marry someone born with the opposite sex genital that any individual is born with because that is what marriage is about. They claimed so they could get benefits, but they could have gotten benefits for their same sex partner without making a mockery of marriage and without defecating on the significance of honouring the one sexual union to which we all owe our very existence which is heterosexual unions. Also without wasting millions of tax payers dollars on a bunch of factually proven lies.
Canada defecated on marriage and heterosexual unions with cowards using the excuse of political party trade off which is quite obviously betraying democracy. In the USA, because their congress would never pass such pathetic lies and a mockery made of marriage along with defecating on the significance of heterosexual unions through them, it was then somehow handed to what is now world renowned as the USA Supreme Court Of Mockery. I, at this point want in contact with all the legal officials related to this case (about a hundred if I recall) but they ignored fact in the end and sold out thus defecating on marriage and heterosexual unions as well. At this point I was puzzled because I wasn't yet clued in to the globalist agenda and hadn't quite realized that lobbyist dictatorship was betraying democracy but I knew something fishy was going on. I even contacted Barack Obama directly but I could only squeeze in a short message of which he responded very quickly telling me they were going to do it anyway. I was so furious that I couldn't even send his online email form enough of the proper information (because of lack of characters you get to use) but I think I may have shared with him where to find it but suspect he didn't even bother. I was surprised at how fast Obama got back (within a day or two if I recall) but started to become very disappointed in him especially in lieu of, I refrained from targeting him over the years to give the man a chance to prove himself and I only grew more disappointed in him from there and lost respect.
The only thing we have had over thousands of years honouring the one human unity we can thank for our existence was shamed by people who obviously have no respect for heterosexual unions or that we even exist thanks to such unions. They quite obviously only cared to use every lie, deception and dirty trick to defecate on that unity thus for now rendering marriage as garbage that is not even worthy of honour. Marriage is not about honouring that if it were up to homosexual unions to sustain the human race, we would have died off thousands of years ago for weakly being a race of sexually defective.
I even had LGBTe'rs try to contest the primary fact on the foundation of this issue that thousands of years of only heterosexual unions being honoured with marriage proves that marriage is about honouring the significance of the one sexual unity we all owe our very existence too which is quite obviously heterosexual unions. But they attempted and are still attempting such with such nonsense as ... ghost marriages.
Ghost marriages: In China if the first born didn't get married then the second born could not get married until the first born got married first. If the second born died before the first born got married then it was deemed acceptable to have what they referred to as a ghost marriage which was always in honour of a "heterosexual union."
Keep in mind that I have tackled this issue many times over the last 17 years I have been taking on many foundations of primary issues and in this instance sharing the facts that exposes the lies and deceptions of the LGBT on foundation of this issue. At one time someone made mention of there was a shaman who, because his people were scared of his shaman abilities, didn't provoke that he lived with a same sex partner and of course I researched this for myself to analyze what was being shared of this because they were claiming that this was a marriage. I recall finding some articles of which stated that in the authors opinion this was a marriage. Of course I found that laughable because being in a relationship with someone is not a marriage unless you actually go through with the official ceremony. I have been in two relationships but never married but again obviously the LGBT would be calling it a marriage because all they really do have are lies and deceptions. They had LGBT becoming scholars just to call all the homosexual relationships they could find throughout history in their opinion as marriages but that was obviously pathetic. Now keep in mind that the leftists and LGBT have had time to infiltrate the First Nations for years on this now and from what I see going on the lobbyists had our government revoke a promise to try and get the First Nations angry with the citizens of Canada when it is not the citizens of Canada voting for people to sell us out to lobbyist dictatorship which is treason, not democracy. Thus obviously having rubbed off their shady tactics upon the first Nations so who knows what the First Nations have agreed to do behind closed doors to help those who actually are the ones who betrayed them in the first place into screw the citizens of Canada. I went to look for that shaman story again today and that story was gone, instead I see that suddenly there are a bunch of releases that begin with the phrase "two spirited" (an LGBT happened too mention such recently as well) so I did a little research and found what looks like severely LGBT twisted compositions.
According to the articles that recently popped up on the internet in recent years, they were claiming that First Nations referred to as "two spirited men and women" involved in relationships of being with the same sex did not hold a marriage ceremony, they just stayed together in long-term relationships. But we have LGBT activists becoming scholars and referring to any homosexual union that they find recorded throughout history and claiming that, that it is their opinion this is a marriage to no surprise but it is quite obviously not a marriage, just a relationship.
I also found something else recently I had not come across before.
New York in the 1920's, if two women wanted to attempt to make a mockery of marriage, even though it was not a legitimate marriage to unite two people born of the same sex going through with it, a woman would masculinaize her name and dress up like a man, or get a man to get her marriage certificate for her. She would then dress up like a man to make a deceptive mockery of the marriage ceremony by deceiving people into thinking that she was a man marrying a woman which was obviously extremely disrespectful and a mockery made of marriage by two homosexuals using a deception to fool people into it. The men wouldn't have ceremonies, they would just stay together in long term relationships while attempting to pass of their relationship as a marriage of which neither was a legitimate marriage quite obviously. Leave it up to the LGBT to try and pass off a deception as legitimate, just take this insanity now escalated to the canadian government trying to make criminals out of citizens for not supporting factually proven LGBT lies with bill C 16.
Also fyi, there is a story of homosexuals attempting to make a mockery of marriage in Rome but they were beheaded for it.
Marriage wouldn't even exist now if it were not for heterosexual unions. None of us would even exist now if it were not for heterosexual unions which quite obviously makes heterosexual unions, well above all other unions, worth honouring. You don't have to get married to have kids as a heterosexual couple but that doesn't detract from the fact that marriage is about honouring the significance of the one sexual union that we all owe our very existence too and once again that unity are quite obviously heterosexual unions.
Because here I sit once again sharing facts that the LGBT is not able to contest with so much as a shred of validity, they are going to resort to their same pathetic stereotypical lies such as referring to me as a hater for exposing their lies they used to defecate on society. they are going to try labeling me as a homophobe for exposing their lies they use to defecate on society. They are going to try to make me out to be in-sighting others to hate for exposing their lies that they used to defecate on society. They are going to try to make their every lie and deceptions the issue including attempting to make me out to be a bigot for revealing them for the obsessive compulsive liars deceivers and bigots that they prove to be. That is what the left does, make up lies about you to try and deflect their lies from being exposed while trying to put words in your mouth with misquotes etc. They do this to try and hide that they have no validity in contesting the simple fact which exposes their lies and deceptions they used to make this soon to be short lived mockery of marriage. They do this to try and make their lies about me the issue in hopes that the facts that expose their lies and deceptions are hidden by a slew of their lies and deceptions. As for me, I am use to dealing with it with their lying deceiving weak pathetic mentalities. I always stick with fact revealing their lies and deceptions and when they realize that their stereotypical garbage doesn't work vs facts that expose them wide open, that is when they have always resorted to making up lies about me such as hater, bigot and homophobe to have me banned off of hundreds of sites over the years. They misquote you obsessively and compulsively as well. I am blocked from many sites because of these pathetic and big time exposed liars wasting your tax dollars to force lies on your children and society as a whole which has gotten completely ridiculous. Of course once they forced their lies and deceptions through legislation they turned around and made policies such as you can't even speak about sexual orientation on online news and political discussion forums. This isn't the only thing they lie and deceive about, they do it on the foundation of many of their issues to do with their bias agenda that I address
Sadly enough I have come to know their mentalities, deceptions and snaky tricks better than the back of my hand, but good thing I did go through all the rhetoric and the discrimination I faced while liars I was exposing made false claims of discrimination to deceive the public with their lies and deceptions because here I sit exposing them, their lies and their shady tactics with this masterpiece.
What would have prevented this LGBT insanity from escalating in the first place, is if when homosexuality was legalized, discrimination against heterosexuality was criminalized because it has been the heterosexuals facing the discrimination the whole time. Yeah that is right, time for you to realize. Some of them pretend to be the opposite sex to make fools out of heterosexuals then when heterosexuals become infuriated with such sick behavior used to infiltrate and traumatize the heterosexual it's the homosexual lying and they always resorted to such lies as homosexual johnny just wants to be left with homosexual Timmy and just wants to be left alone which is quite obviously the lie they were already forcing on the public soon after homosexuality became legal in North America.
Now that their every lie and deception is exposed quite thoroughly to do with specifically marriage, it's time to put an end to the LGBT insanity manifestation permanently and globally beginning right here in North America by restoring marriage to a respectable state, criminalizing anyone pretending to be the opposite sex that they are born ever again and start working towards having people actually accepting themselves for what they are instead of this insanity of encouraging them to not accept themselves for what they are while trying to force legally on the public that anyone should ever have to accept them for what these people are not! Decades of LGBT lies need to be removed from legislation and I have been proving this with the facts that expose those lies for almost 2 decades now. (globalists are using the LGBT to make a mockery of our societies and turn us against one another hence the mass funding the LGBT gets) What do I get for doing such an excellent job over the years, hidden from the public by being banned almost everywhere and the few sites I am on have little activity. I get defecated on by a bunch of people treating my fellow citizens and Earthlings with a bunch of lies and deceptions and dirty tricks while wasting tonnes of tax payer cash on lies as they get away with defecating on society with such insane rhetoric! Even though I have been getting the short end of the stick for doing the very best anyone I have seen ever do on these issues, it is my pleasure to continue fighting the good fight for the well being and sanity of current and future generations. I know I have become aggressive and sometimes even short tempered over the years, but who wouldn't in lieu of these circumstances?!!
love
Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada
When our state recognized gay marriage, I told my wife we need to get divorced our marriage was being destroyed by gay marriage. She did not buy it. Somehow she was able to see that absolutely nothing had changed and gay marriage was no threat at all. It had zero impact in our marriage. Hard to believe .Nothing had changed.
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
As thousands of years already prove beyond shadow of doubt, marriage was created for and in honour of the one sexual union to which we all owe our very existence and here you are eagerly defecating on that being worthy of honour.
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
That last one appeared to have nailed it to a halt, my pleasure 
I think I'll make a text photo out of it and when I do I'll be sure to share it around.
I think I'll make a text photo out of it and when I do I'll be sure to share it around.
Did you actually read his word salad? I couldn’t make it past the first paragraph. He cracks me up.
No that is wrong. Marriage was a legal and binding contract for the wealthy in Europe. It was a way to combine power and nations to be stronger of safer. It was not about love. It was not about kids, except as heirs to fortunes.
Want to have more people. ignore marriage totally and allow people to have sex without relgious rules.
I have been married for almost 40 years. The impact of gay marriage on my marriage.....absolutely zero.
You are crapping on logic and the truth.
David Jeffrey Spetch
Verified User
always between someone born with a penis and someone born with a vagina because as thousands of years reveals that is what marriage was created for and in honour of, thank you very much
Port Tack
Verified User
that is what you are doing. It's a marriage just like yours but you can go ahead and deny it if it makes you feel better
Port Tack
Verified User
Ignorant homophobic shitheads such as yourself like to claim the gay marriage isn't real but they just make assholes out of themselves because even they know they are real.