Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[USFREEDOM911]

A full size sex robot.

Also unable to give consent.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have had dogs all my life, and they most certainly DO have the capacity to "consent!" And who the fuck are YOU to decide what MY dog feels they are a "victim" of? Why are YOU the one who gets to determine that? Who gave YOU the right to cast your moral judgment on ME or my dog? ...All the SAME arguments made for homosexuals can also be made for people who "love" their pets! And you have NO MORAL ground to stand on, because you've frittered it away with the Gay Marriage issue! Enjoy the fucking MESS you've made!

If you feel that your dog was giving you consent, you are truly delusional and that is pretty abnormal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It could be programmed to say "I do".

Note: that is the only explanation on how I got my wife to say that with me at the altar.

Programing is not consent.
It is only a recording of what the programer desired.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not "hyperemotional" to point out your hypocrisy! Capacity for higher thought is not necessary for "consent" and dogs, horses, and other animals are certainly capable of exhibiting "consent" or "non-consent" to humans. You want to be silly and act as if that isn't the case, but go watch the fucking Westminster Dog Show sometime!

I find it compelling you think someone gave you the moral authority to decide when a person and their pet are really "in love" and can demonstrate that love through marriage! Just who the fuck do you think you are? Where the fuck do you get off thinking YOU have that right? You want to "change the definition of marriage", you best get ready for this kind of challenge, because it's damn sure headed your way as soon as you do! And what's going to be funny, is how you'll be standing there looking like a foolish hypocrite without anything to really offer, except the same justifications as people currently have for opposing Gay Marriage!

Dixie exhibiting a major hissy fit, over a non-supportable argument.
Major failer

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It is when you are projecting a see-through straw man. Consenting is the most important word, and there is no dog that has such a capacity.

Pretending the argument is the same is just Junior High silliness and wasted here. When dogs are capable of signing binding contracts and have no owners, then we can talk.

And you again pretend that I want to "change the definition of marriage" because you are lost in a desperate wish for everybody to disagree with you, to maintain this illusion, although we agree on how to fix the issue, you will pretend I say all sorts of things I haven't.

The government should grant licenses only for "unions", marriages are religious ceremonies you can have if you want. Dogs have no capacity to sign contracts, when they can we'll let them take part in these unions as they wish.

Did Dixie just denigrate homosexuality to the status of a pet or that of an animal!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Dogs can consent by wagging their fucking tail or barking! They ALL have that capacity! When I attempt to bathe my dog, he routinely DOES NOT consent to it! If a woman enjoys being mounted by her Great Dane, I would imagine the dog consents, or he wouldn't mount her! Either you are completely ignorant of dog behavior, or you are ignorant as to what "consent" means. As for signing contracts and not having owners, neither of those things are necessary for consent or love, so why are you placing those particular restrictions on marriage? Everything you can argue to enable a redefining of marriage to include homosexuals, can also be enabled to include every other kind of deviant sexual behavior under the same principles and precepts. Not only CAN they be, they most certain WILL be, if we allow any redefinition to occur, and be codified into law. The Constitution guarantees it, and you with your restrictions and caveats, will not be able to deny the "right" because you've already established you can't deny such rights!

Yeah, I know you agree with what I proposed before about Civil Unions, so why the fuck are you now taking a position in defense of Gay Marriage, like some kind of goddamn moron? I think you are a fucking egomaniac who likest to think he is brilliantly infallible, and never has a wrong opinion on anything! What you are is a pathetic hypocritical JOKE!

Now you're equating "consent" to that of training or behavior.
I guess you also feel that homosexuals are just animals.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Wow... Excuse me, but when did we start examining the "brain capacity" of homosexuals, or questioning whether they understood the consequences of homosexuality? It seems to me, you want to pick and choose where to apply your standards and deny people the right to do what makes them happy!

Spot? Bark twice to say "I do!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you consent to this marriage? Bark twice for "Yes!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you understand the consequences? Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you promise to love this person til death do you part? Ruff! Ruff!

Trigger? Stomp your hoof twice if you want to marry this woman! Stomp-Stomp!

See how easy that was Damo? Animals can (and do) consent! So who are YOU to deny a consenting dog or horse, and consenting adult, to enjoy their love how they wish? It's not hurting YOU Damo! It's not effecting YOUR marriage, Damo! Why are you being an intolerant bigot, Damo?

Now you want to equate homosexuality to that of a trained animal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well, when Homosexuals have the capacity to tell me they understand the effects of homosexual behavior on the human body, and the detrimental effects to society as a whole, we can talk! Until then, it's just as silly an argument.


You keep attempting to apply YOUR CRITERIA to something that is not your affair! You are saying on one hand, it's not your business what other people do, it's not your place to decide what is right and wrong for them, but on the other hand, you want to establish criteria and restrictions, and apply your own standards to others. Like I said, you simply CAN'T have it both ways, and not be a hypocrite! You can pretend you're not, you can keep blathering your idiocy like you're not being a hypocrite, but that is EXACTLY what you have articulated here... You don't have any say in the standards or criteria for people marrying people, but by god you got all kinds of criteria and standards when it comes to animals... why the fuck is that?

Now were closer to the "real reasons" that Dixie is against this.

Dixie; could you please tell us what are the "effects of homosexual behavior on the human body" and what are "the detrimental effects to society as a whole"?

 

[Beefy]

No it's not the same at all. No one is denying homosexuals ANY right that other people have! NONE! NADDA! ZILCH! ZIPPOLA! If you come up with something that non-homosexual people can do, which is prohibited to homosexuals, let me know about it!

Marrying the person they love.

Shut up with your flagrant homophobia. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and you don't want gays to have the same right.

Its pretty simple.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What you need to do is realize that this solution would allow gay marriage, there are many churches that already perform those ceremonies. We agree on what the government should do, let's work towards it rather than spending myriad hours with you assuming what I believe rather than reading what I say.

Damo, Gay people have been "getting hitched" for years! I attended a Gay Wedding in 1986 IN ALABAMA!!!! I am not opposed to this, never have been, never will be, it's not an issue for me! I have numerous friends who are gay, even some who support Gay Marriage! So I already realize my solution would allow something that has already been going on for the past 25 years or more! That isn't something I need to realize!

This argument is about whether or not we should codify into law, a provision which allows homosexual couples the right to obtain state sponsored marriage licenses, and I am opposed to that! I've explained in exhausting detail, exactly WHY I am opposed to that! I have offered a solution, (which you agree with) to settle this issue for ALL sides, and give everyone what they want. But you want to "side" with those who aren't interested in embracing my idea, and argue in favor of changing the definition of marriage! You want to be part of the anti-religious activism, because it makes you feel "cool" or something, I suppose.

And now, you have started this stupid pandering shit about how long you've known me, and you've had this same position all these years, and I didn't used to have this viewpoint, I've only recently come around to YOUR way of thinking! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Damo... You don't know me, you don't know my position on the issues and we're not friends or buddies. You run a half-assed message board, that frankly likes a LOT to be desired, your nose is firmly up the ass of Grind or any other half-wit punk you think shares your Libertarian idiot philosophy, and you strut around here acting like you are the only person on the board with the intellect to formulate a valid and worthwhile opinion. It's things like this that make wonder why the fuck I didn't stay GONE!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No it's not the same at all. No one is denying homosexuals ANY right that other people have! NONE! NADDA! ZILCH! ZIPPOLA! If you come up with something that non-homosexual people can do, which is prohibited to homosexuals, let me know about it! As it stands, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, no one even ASKS you if you're homosexual! No straight or non-gay person is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, doesn't matter what color they are! The same exact rule applies across the board regardless of your sexuality or race, and there is nothing even remotely similar to racial discrimination. It is absurd, apauling, and downright sickening for you to continue to make this inane argument. It's a total affront to the Civil Rights struggle, and everything we have accomplished since the 1960s! If I were a black man in proximity of you when you spewed this crap, I'd slap your teeth out for it!

You are denying people the right to marry someone that they care for and want to spend their life with.
The rest of your argument is just you clutching at straws, in a pathetic attempt to stay afloat.

And if I were a homsexual in proximity of when you spewed your crap, I'd butt fuck your brains out.
How's that Mr. Internet window warrior!! LOL

 

[Beefy]

Dixie, do you think all people should be allowed to marry the one they love?

And before you go talking about dogs again, let me reiterate "people" and quantify that with "consenting", in case your little noggin was over capacity.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

From a "governmental" standpoint, that is exactly what I proposed we do!

Then what do you intend to do with the thousands of State Laws that deal with this??

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marrying the person they love.

Shut up with your flagrant homophobia. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and you don't want gays to have the same right.

Its pretty simple.

WRONGOLA!

I love Rosamund Pike! ...can't marry her, she doesn't even know who I am! I LOVE the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders... can't marry them, even though I am straight as an arrow!

Gay people can marry anyone under the EXACT same criteria as I have for marriage, not one iota of difference, in fact, they don't even ask if you are gay when you get a marriage license! If you know of a state that prohibits homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex (just as straight people can) then let me know, I will protest!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Blathering. Now you attempt to say they haven't the intellectual capacity to understand contracts?

I'm beginning to believe that Dixie doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything over two letters long.

 

[Beefy]

WRONGOLA!

I love Rosamund Pike! ...can't marry her, she doesn't even know who I am! I LOVE the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders... can't marry them, even though I am straight as an arrow!

Gay people can marry anyone under the EXACT same criteria as I have for marriage, not one iota of difference, in fact, they don't even ask if you are gay when you get a marriage license! If you know of a state that prohibits homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex (just as straight people can) then let me know, I will protest!

Stop it. You're being an even bigger retard than normal, and the red herring is not going to divert.

Should two consenting adults, that love each other, have the right to marry or not?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Then what do you intend to do with the thousands of State Laws that deal with this??

Whereas, we the Congress have established that Marriage is a religious institution.
and whereas, we the Congress have determined it is not under purview of the government to sanction or otherwise ordain such religious institutions, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, hereby establish the following:

Be it enacted, on this day, (date), the year of our Lord, the Civil Unions Act of 2010.

Heretofore be it recognized by law of the land and appropriate authorities of the many states, all state recognized and sanction marriages shall effectively become civil union contracts, and any provision administered for the purpose and intent of traditional married couples, shall heretofore be covered under this law from this day forward. Be it enacted, that if a law pertains to "marriage" it will henceforth be recognized as "civil union" instead.

Also, any person or persons who are too ignorant or incapable of understanding this simple transition, shall be confined to a mental institution to be determined by appropriate authorities.


.......SO, that's kinda how you'd go about doing it, USF!

 

[Beefy]

Whereas, we the Congress have established that Marriage is a religious institution.
and whereas, we the Congress have determined it is not under purview of the government to sanction or otherwise ordain such religious institutions, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, hereby establish the following:

Be it enacted, on this day, (date), the year of our Lord, the Civil Unions Act of 2010.

Heretofore be it recognized by law of the land and appropriate authorities of the many states, all state recognized and sanction marriages shall effectively become civil union contracts, and any provision administered for the purpose and intent of traditional married couples, shall heretofore be covered under this law from this day forward. Be it enacted, that if a law pertains to "marriage" it will henceforth be recognized as "civil union" instead.

Also, any person or persons who are too ignorant or incapable of understanding this simple transition, shall be confined to a mental institution to be determined by appropriate authorities.


.......SO, that's kinda how you'd go about doing it, USF!

Next time you cry about the constitution being subverted, look to yourself as a cheerleader for it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Whereas, we the Congress have established that Marriage is a religious institution.
and whereas, we the Congress have determined it is not under purview of the government to sanction or otherwise ordain such religious institutions, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, hereby establish the following:

Be it enacted, on this day, (date), the year of our Lord, the Civil Unions Act of 2010.

Heretofore be it recognized by law of the land and appropriate authorities of the many states, all state recognized and sanction marriages shall effectively become civil union contracts, and any provision administered for the purpose and intent of traditional married couples, shall heretofore be covered under this law from this day forward. Be it enacted, that if a law pertains to "marriage" it will henceforth be recognized as "civil union" instead.

Also, any person or persons who are too ignorant or incapable of understanding this simple transition, shall be confined to a mental institution to be determined by appropriate authorities.


.......SO, that's kinda how you'd go about doing it, USF!

But you seem to have forgotten all the lawsuits that will probably tie this up for years and eventually end up at the Supreme Court level.

Or do you think that Obama or a Federal Judge is just going to enact this and that's the way it's going to be.

Nice how you first equate homosexuals with animals and now try to make it appear that anyone who doesn't agree with your stupidiy, has a mental problem.

You're nothing more then a whiny brat that needs to be spanked and sent to bed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stop it. You're being an even bigger retard than normal, and the red herring is not going to divert.

Should two consenting adults, that love each other, have the right to marry or not?

Marriage is the holy union of a man and woman. In that respect, yes. If you want to try and change what marriage is, and make it something else, NOPE, we shouldn't bestow that right on people and sanction it through our government. If gay people want to have a "wedding" and pretend they are married, it's not my business, but the state shouldn't sponsor that or license it, because that isn't what marriage is.