At 8/22/12 04:03 PM, Feoric wrote: He wants to add 100,000 more troops because...well why not?

Yep, that's about all I need to know.

At 8/2/12 03:42 PM, kewlboy05 wrote: im not gay myself but you may not like gays but think about it gays are people too they have feelings and there choice is ...stringing sentence angst...apart thousands of peoples lives!

Well then I guess you know who not to vote vote for.

That's because power belongs to the state, not the federal government. You guys can have your own opinions on the issue and what your "definition" of marriage is. But let me play along. Let us say that the definition of marriage is "two people regardless of age, gender, numbers, etc". Now, in the state of California, if the majority of voters voted against gay marriage, then a bill should pass banning gay marriage. Instead, the ACLU invades and tells the majority of voters to go fuck off and gay marriage is still legal.

Tell me, is that not tyranny to have 1 judge turn over the majority of people's vote in the state of California? Even if it wasn't about gay marriage and it was about putting some bear to sleep after it broke into a family's house and mauled the whole family. Wouldn't it be unjust to have 1 judge spare the bear despite over half of the state voting to kill the bear?

You see, this is exactly why liberalism is a mental disorder. They just can't see anything past their agenda. You try showing them reason, and they respond with either talking points or a bunch of B.S. Let me just make it very clear for you homo supporters; the states will decide whether they want it legal or illegal. You want to marry a homo, then go to a state that allows it. If the high taxes from the liberal states fucks you in the ass, don't come to any other state that opposes homo marriage with your lover. Also, please don't call gay marriage "marriage", because the definition of marriage is the reunion between man and woman.

waits for a liberal to spin the argument

At 8/26/12 08:06 PM, Computer112 wrote: United State will be fucked up if Romney ever win. I also hate Obama and his actions but right now he's the best option.

Romney never ran for office, so how would you know he would fuck up? Obama has ran for 4 years and has proven to be a failure. Why would you support someone who is a failure and has proven it over a guy who will actually get rid of regulations and let small businesses run smooth? You see, I hate this stupid mentality because 4 years ago, you libs said the same thing I said about Obama before he ran.

I do not believe the debate has ever been about whether or not homosexuals are allowed to love, or express that love. What's being strived for must be the benefits that come with marriage itself. Now, you may define marriage however you like; personally, I feel that redefining what it has been forever is extremely offensive and actually undermines the tradition and meaning of marriage. Love is one thing, marriage is another.

You are free to disagree with opinions, however, what most people fail to acknowledge is the objective purpose of government sponsored marriage. People do not receive benefits when they marry because the government wants everyone to be happy and in love. The government is not "being nice". There is a clear, definite reason for giving married couples the benefits they receive - which is the encouragement of reproduction.

The financial ease is meant to create families. The government is and has been doing this so that there are more Americans - a bigger workforce, and more potential for great innovation. So, please explain why a homosexual couple, who cannot, in any way reproduce, should receive benefits created to encourage reproduction? That's right, it is absolute nonsense. This is NOT a debate over rights. It's a debate over privileges that are, as it is, not discriminatory to any heterosexual union.

Say you have a football team. You have the regular players, and you have the staff. The team is made up of the typical athletes. But, someone wants to join the team. Unfortunately, he has no legs. Now obviously he cannot actually play on the field; but, perhaps you can hire him to work on the sidelines. So, should he get paid the same as those who do play? I would say no. It is not discriminatory, because he simply does not fit the JOB DESCRIPTION. It is not hateful; he simply does not have the capability to play - and thus, should not get paid for playing.

I realize this metaphor is a little rough, but you get the general idea.

At 8/27/12 01:28 AM, hateyou1 wrote: You want to marry a homo, then go to a state that allows it. If the high taxes from the liberal states fucks you in the ass, don't come to any other state that opposes homo marriage with your lover.

I also agree with this. This should be a state matter, not a federal one.

At 8/28/12 08:52 AM, Silverdust wrote: "redefining what it has been forever"

Um, marriage hasn't had the same 4 corners "forever". Seriously, please take the slightest amount of energy before you start trying to srtip people of privileges because you don't like ass play. You only have to look back 50 years to find a fundamental change in marriage (one that the opponents claimed had been in marriage forever, but marriage seems to have done fine, if not grown).

There is a clear, definite reason for giving married couples the benefits they receive - which is the encouragement of reproduction.
The financial ease is meant to create families.

Even if this was the goal, you have stated two DIFFERENT goals here. Reproduction and family building are two distinct goals. Guess which one isn't the goal: reproduction. We as fuck crazy animals DON'T NEED HELP. What society needs is a stable home for the results of society's reproduction to grow, develop, and mature. Nothing about having a family requires the ability to reproduce with your partner, or even to reproduce at all. There is a concept known as adoption. There is sperm donation. There is surrogacy. There even is the option to have sex with someone else and get the child.

If reproduction is the cornerstone of marriage, why the hell do they let women over the age of 45 marry? What about the infertile? What should we do about those who are fertile and of age, but choose not to have children? Punish them?

I realize this metaphor is a little rough, but you get the general idea.

It's not just rough, it's completely irrelevant. Like I said before, nothing about marriage had jack shit to do with concieving a child with one's spouse. NOTHING.

Do you really want to know what marriage is? Marriage has been a contract. Up until recently, marriage was about the joining of a third person into the extended family of another. That's all it was. It was a way to sort out all of the legal and social issues involved in this transfer. Seriously, look at the legal issues involved, only ONE (just one) has anything to do with children, and that is custody. But wait, custody DOESN'T NEED marriage. Everything else is merely the sorting out of relations between the spouses, as otherwise they would have no rights to anything about each other at all.

At 8/27/12 01:28 AM, hateyou1 wrote: You want to marry a homo, then go to a state that allows it. If the high taxes from the liberal states fucks you in the ass, don't come to any other state that opposes homo marriage with your lover.

"If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to Africa where Black people are everywhere?" Sound familiar?

I also agree with this. This should be a state matter, not a federal one.

What you are truly saying is, "When it comes to the prohibition of gay marriage I am all for the Federal Government, but when it comes to grantin g it, I want the states to be incharge. That way we can ensure that gay marriage never becaomes legal in most states."

Tell me, is that not tyranny to have 1 judge turn over the majority of people's vote in the state of California? Even if it wasn't about gay marriage and it was about putting some bear to sleep after it broke into a family's house and mauled the whole family. Wouldn't it be unjust to have 1 judge spare the bear despite over half of the state voting to kill the bear?

The ACLU was in the right for doing what they did. They're hard at work fighting for civil rights, and I support it, no matter what the means may be, save for outright terrorism. Even if it means a vote has to be overturned, oh freakin' well. If it were me, I would further my action and say that no bill against gay marriage could ever be introduced. Why not let gays have their turn in the spotlight? It's only fair, and these idiots who think banning it is A-Okay can go screw themselves with a giant rubber dildo. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT for EVERYONE. I don't care whose vote has to be overturned to keep it that way.

Also, please don't call gay marriage "marriage", because the definition of marriage is the reunion between man and woman.

I am going to keep this just so everyone can see just how much of a bigoted asshat you are. I recommend you go check yourself into a looney-bin. Bigotry is not welcome in my country.

Gays may be humans like I am but that's completely disgusting. I won't tolerate watching two guys go at it. I think they should grow out of there stupidity of homosexuality. Men and women go at it. Gays don't reproduce. They shouldn't be allowed to marry because you marry someone to start a family with by breeding with them and not adopting. Go Romney!

At 9/6/12 11:53 PM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: Gays may be humans like I am but that's completely disgusting. I won't tolerate watching two guys go at it. I think they should grow out of there stupidity of homosexuality. Men and women go at it. Gays don't reproduce. They shouldn't be allowed to marry because you marry someone to start a family with by breeding with them and not adopting. Go Romney!

Wow...I don't wanna live on this planet anymore. The fact that someone as disgusting as yourself, trolling or not has the brass to say that is disturbing. Marriage is the union of two people who are willing to make a life-long commitment to each other and no one else.

Why not legalize polygamy while we're at it?

At 9/6/12 11:53 PM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: They shouldn't be allowed to marry because you marry someone to start a family with by breeding with them and not adopting. Go Romney!

So if you turned out to be infertile, what then?