How come none of the right-wing predictions about gay marriage came true?

AMICUS

Gays are to the Democrats what Baptists are to the GOP. No right thinking person cares to associate with either group but the votes are useful. And both groups use their votes as leverage to show their asses in public.

Translation:

AMICUNT

I'm an old white fart like you and also like you, I hate having to see the twilight of our hegemony and encroaching obsolescence. The president is a colored, the gays are getting married, overweight bitches think they're hot, they don't put real fatty butter in biscuits no more, you can't smoke in movie theaters and sissy boys eating tofu are considered he-men movie stars. Knowing medical science, we both will probably live long enough to see a damn woman be president, just like the nurses cleaning our bedpans.

It's no country for old men, my sun-wizened, crusty friend.
 
Your quest for knowledge? You are citing the fixed and rigid texts of the Bible as truths immortal. You wrote that Christian Morals are immortal and immutable and argue that deviation from them is death. How quaint - how anti-quest for knowledge.

Get real and stop pretending to be the erudite gentleman of education. There is no point in philosophical debate with you, you cannot even admit to the stupidity of your "Animal marriage" statement and rigidly defend even your most inane statements (not with facts of course but with more inane statements).

Hoisted? You have not offered even one fact concerning the supposed damages of homosexual marriage. You offer opinions and ridicule to anyone who disagrees with you.

Grow up and when you have, come back and perhaps you might be worthy of more than scorn.

**

And your "late life surge" - also includes many single women, gay women and married women using artificial means of conception. It is not a shining example of the necessity for your "One Male Dominates One woman household.

You believe that only an Alpha Male can be decisive in times of crisis? The English call and raise you Victoria.

You have assigned the moniker of "collectivist" to me and many others - simply because we do not agree with your bigoted viewpoints. Agree with Amicus2k6 or you must be a democrat, a socialist or a collectivist.

The first line in your post, based on your stupidly blinkered vision and on your emotional assumptions about me, was wrong in totality.

dear kbate and zumi,
i love you guys.


that is all.
 
Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.

“We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday…

The complaint to be filed Wednesday, Turley said, presents seven constitutional challenges to the state’s bigamy law. It is largely based on the right to privacy.

“In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values—even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state,” said Turley, a member of the faculty at George Washington University.

...

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses…

The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.

Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/...enge-constitutionality-of-utahs-polygamy-law/

Why not restructure the family law system?

It's the 21st century, not the 19th...
 
Marriage between two men or two women, cannot, which is why you continue to avoid defending the concepts and offer only criticism of those who do.
First and foremost, it needs no defense. Same sex marriage has no effect on me whatsoever since I'm married to a woman and quite happy with that.

But, the reason I'm in favor of same sex marriage for those who choose to get married is that it affords a same sex couple all the same rights as a married opposite sex couple. There is no other legal status that does.

I'm opposed to creating an equal status with a different term because that would increase the size of government.
There would be the need to alter thousands of forms. Taxpayers would have to pay people to modify the current ones, destroy the old ones, print new ones and distribute them.
We'd also have to pay people to modify countless government web sites.

Not passing laws prohibiting same sex marriage is the most fiscally conservative method.
 
Time will prove that homosexuals marrying - will have no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence or success of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual childrearing.
Thanks...sheesh, now I have this visual of all these married guys who now can't get it up with their wives because two guys got married that day. :mad:
 
Your quest for knowledge? You are citing the fixed and rigid texts of the Bible as truths immortal.
And I really don't get that.

One favorite rational, as we've seen, by people quoting the bible as immutable and who are afraid of same sex marriage is that it will lead to incestuous marriage.
A problem with that is in the bible God required incest; and at a time when incest would be a lot riskier genetically than it would be today.

Perhaps that's why they have such convoluted thinking.
 
Dear Reader

If we can fine and harass smokers why not Gays? I mean, AIDS is expensive and a serious financial burden on society.
 
Dear Reader

If we can fine and harass smokers why not Gays? I mean, AIDS is expensive and a serious financial burden on society.
I've been annoyed by smokers in public places much more often than by gays in public places.

I've never had a gay man persist after being told, "Go away".
I've had a smoker ask if I mind if he smokes, then, when I said "Yes, I do mind.", reply "I don't care." and light up anyway.

In any case, that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
I've been annoyed by smokers in public places much more often than by gays in public places.

I've never had a gay man persist after being told, "Go away".
I've had a smoker ask if I mind if he smokes, then, when I said "Yes, I do mind.", reply "I don't care." and light up anyway.

In any case, that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

It has everything to do with same-sex marriage. Its conduct and status. A Hitler like person can tag your ass with a pink triangle and toss you in a labor camp before you know it. And old Hitler loved fags during the Brown Shirt Days. When they stopped being useful he murdered them.
 
It has everything to do with same-sex marriage. Its conduct and status. A Hitler like person can tag your ass with a pink triangle and toss you in a labor camp before you know it. And old Hitler loved fags during the Brown Shirt Days. When they stopped being useful he murdered them.

Except you loved Hitler, so the point is moot
 
Not me. I am and have always been for liberty in this issue, not for social engineering on any level conducted by government. I do not care who marries, how they do it, or where they conduct the ceremonies - as long as there is no special privilege granted by government to any one group for having performed the ceremony. But if one demographic gets special privilege under law - all should get it and that's the whole story.

Anyone who thinks otherwise - has lost the idea of liberty and cannot claim to be a true liberal.

Time will prove that homosexuals marrying - will have no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence or success of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual childrearing.

If you look at the conservative campaigns against gay rights in any state you'll find that they accuse gays of wanting "special rights" above and beyond what's normal. They can't name any particulars of course... But they scare a lot of folks into voting their way.
 
And I really don't get that.

One favorite rational, as we've seen, by people quoting the bible as immutable and who are afraid of same sex marriage is that it will lead to incestuous marriage.
A problem with that is in the bible God required incest; and at a time when incest would be a lot riskier genetically than it would be today.

Perhaps that's why they have such convoluted thinking.


The real problem with that is that while people are born with one sexual orientation or another, nobody is born innately incestuous. You can't compare them at all.
 
Rather than accept at face value that same sex marriage, promiscuity and abortion are now the accepted norms and should be respected; I question just where this lifestyle will lead.


Same sex marriage has nothing to do with promiscuity or abortion. This is just willful misunderstanding on your part. "Quest for knowledge", huh?
 
Dahlia Lithwich rebuts reformed homo AJ

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/...enge-constitutionality-of-utahs-polygamy-law/

Why not restructure the family law system?

It's the 21st century, not the 19th...DERP DERP DERP

Dahlia Lithwick: Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage?

One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state.


As regular as clockwork, "reformed homosexual" AJ and/or miles the Judenazi dredges up some form of slippery slope arguments against gay marriage.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
It has everything to do with same-sex marriage. Its conduct and status. A Hitler like person can tag your ass with a pink triangle and toss you in a labor camp before you know it. And old Hitler loved fags during the Brown Shirt Days. When they stopped being useful he murdered them.
So you're saying there should be laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in order to protect homosexuals from being murdered?
Well, that's certainly a new take on it.

If you look at the conservative campaigns against gay rights in any state you'll find that they accuse gays of wanting "special rights" above and beyond what's normal. They can't name any particulars of course... But they scare a lot of folks into voting their way.
Of course, and that's exactlythe reason they yell "special rights!"
The real problem with that is that while people are born with one sexual orientation or another, nobody is born innately incestuous. You can't compare them at all.
Oh, I wasn't comparing them, I was just pointing out another inconsistency.
Same sex marriage has nothing to do with promiscuity or abortion. This is just willful misunderstanding on your part. "Quest for knowledge", huh?
I don't think it's misunderstanding, willful or otherwise. You'd have to be a complete moron to think there's a connection. Although....
 
If you look at the conservative campaigns against gay rights in any state you'll find that they accuse gays of wanting "special rights" above and beyond what's normal. They can't name any particulars of course... But they scare a lot of folks into voting their way.

blame the conservatives all you want merc , but are you saying no democrats ever vote against same sex marriage when it's a ballot issue ?
all those hard hat wearin , democrat supporting / bought & paid for teamsters...they're siding with gay marriage advocates ?
please .
 
blame the conservatives all you want merc , but are you saying no democrats ever vote against same sex marriage when it's a ballot issue ?
all those hard hat wearin , democrat supporting / bought & paid for teamsters...they're siding with gay marriage advocates ?
please .

Yes. Because there are no gay teamsters.
 
How come nothing they said about gay marriage came true? Zilch, zero of their doomsday predictions have come to pass. Why not?

I don't know what "right wing" has to do with this issue, not all pro-family values Americans are "right wing."

The predictions of the harm this would cause HAVE COME TRUE ALREADY and will CONTINUE TO COME TRUE in the years and decades to come.

How exactly do you figure no predictions have come true? Could you possible explain?

We are already seeing more and more television shows having to feature homosexuality. My mom's soap opera she's watched for forty years just added a homosexual character yesterday. You think the legitimacy they are getting from these "marriages" have nothing to do with that?

They are already teaching it a no different than opposite sex in the schools in more and more places. Again, the "marriages" have nothing to do with that?

How exactly do you think nothing has come true?????? Of course it has, and it will only get worse over the years to come to the point where nobody will want to get "married" anymore because they will think its a big joke.
 
I don't know what "right wing" has to do with this issue, not all pro-family values Americans are "right wing."

The predictions of the harm this would cause HAVE COME TRUE ALREADY and will CONTINUE TO COME TRUE in the years and decades to come.

How exactly do you figure no predictions have come true? Could you possible explain?

We are already seeing more and more television shows having to feature homosexuality. My mom's soap opera she's watched for forty years just added a homosexual character yesterday. You think the legitimacy they are getting from these "marriages" have nothing to do with that?

They are already teaching it a no different than opposite sex in the schools in more and more places. Again, the "marriages" have nothing to do with that?

How exactly do you think nothing has come true?????? Of course it has, and it will only get worse over the years to come to the point where nobody will want to get "married" anymore because they will think its a big joke.

File this under the "Have you stopped beating your wife" category of replies. :rolleyes:

I thought after Tucson, the spirit of respect and civility was supposed to be the new order of the day. Seems like some people didn't get the message.



heh heh heh
 
Back
Top