/hands Yurt his ass on a platter....
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marriage_in_California[/ame]
It was not changed, but refined:But it was a tradition, that has chenged; just like the negative attitudes toward Gay marriages.
You'll have to accept it and pretty soon Texas will have Broke Back Mountain anniverseries and you can attend.
USF getting hissy.And Yurt now pwns the Prophet.
Some states allow the parents the freedom to decide if their 16 year old is mature enough.
Wow did you really say this? Do you know anything about the Church of Satan or other Satanic churches? Rhetorical, the short answer is no, you don't, just as you know very little about homosexuals. Satanic Homosexuals would probably cause you to stare and drool, but I digress. The definition of marriage has change over time and you refuse to see those changes for what they were. Marriage in Virginia and other southern states was recognized as one man and one woman as long they were not mixed race ( In Loving, actually Virginia was fine with a Mexican Man and Black woman marrying but a white could not marry outside of their race). That changed. The change was a revocation of bigotry, and the resistence to homosexual marriage is nothing but bigotry. The argument about the US and States recognizing marriages performed in the Wiccan Church, Marriages that were arranged in Hindu and other religious traditions carries a great deal of weight. You talk about religious freedoms and I agree. If Hinduism says you don't have know and like your spouse before you get married it's no skin off my back. But lets say that Unitarian Universalists decide, and they have, that same sex marriage fits their religious views as a valid form of marriage? Well then you want to forbid them from performing a legally recognizable marriage. So you are not foursquare in favor of religious freedom.
If it is a choice one way then it is a choice BOTH ways. So....tell us about the day you chose to sexually terrify women rather than men. Did you weigh the pros and cons? Did you decide you preferred rounder hairless asses to the more muscular and hairy? Did you decide that a labia was preferable to balls on your chin? Vaginal fluids better than semen? I am currious, because as far back as I can remember, I liked girls. My first real verifiable memory is from the age of 4 and being on a plane flying to L.A. with my grandparents and seeing this lovely 4 or 5 year old creature with beautiful blue eyes and an enchanting smile. I was smitten though I didn't know what smitten was at the time. Now, I have a gay friend who recalls sitting at the window of his house at the age of 6 and watching the teenage boy across the street mow his parents yard, and feeling that same smitten feeling. He knew at 6 he preferred balls and semen to labias and vaginal fluid. Most gay men you talk to will tell you that they KNEW at a young age that they liked boys. Most lesbians will tell you they knew they like girls from a young age. But like you and me, they can't tell you when they CHOSE to be attracted to the same sex, only when they CHOSE to come out of the closet.
This is the STUPIDEST argument. An animal cannot and never will be able to consent. This is THE example of a straw man.
Not really. Most are born normal, and some choose to be abnormal.
In other words, you can't refute my argument.
I knew you didn't have the chops to address the whole post. 6 year olds don't CHOOSE to be attracted to one sort of person or another, just happens. I know this because I have a 6 year old boy who is most decidedly into girls. Has been since he was 3 or 4. No choice made, just who he is.
I did address your whole post, except of course the perverted portions, which I ignored.
Your argument appears to be that the complexities of language are meaningless.