Political protests are always a little more fun when the protesters are a little more fabulous. With the overturning of Proposition 8 in California today, the writing appears to be on the wall for opponents of marriage equality. That's a little bittersweet, since the writing on these pro-gay marriage protest signs is entertaining enough that we're definitely going to miss them when the battle is finally over nationwide.
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
© Carina C. Zona
-
hanna | 02/19/2012 flag |
My boyfriend and I were in love for 3 and half years and we lived together almost 2 and half year. He used to care me more than his own life. He used to love me and take care of me like a baby. Then suddenly he started to act wired since january and broke up with me in two week back saying he has a new girl friend. But again he started to come back to me 6 days but But finally on the 7 day I figured out he was sleeping with that girl and me at the same time. That girl is known as a very bad girl and my boy friend knows that but still he is with her. That's little unusual for him. It almost feels like someone did something to him. Then I saw ***@yahoo.com on internet and I called him. First he asked me for my boyfriend photograph then he advised me some remedies and with in 4 days my boyfriend come back to me and first time he said sorry to me. I am very happy now. I want to say thanks to priestoflovespell.
-
FUNNY!! | 02/14/2012 flag |
I've seen these before but they still make me laugh! My fave has to be the one about a Gay Bridal Registry saving the economy!!
As for this whole gay marriage debate...I agree with the placard!! LET THEM BE MISERABLE TOO! hahahaha! -
GLincoln | 02/10/2012 flag |
Don't worry- all the bigots will be dead in 50 to 75 years and garriage will be the norm.
-
Poppy | 02/08/2012 flag |
Alright, I read the comments because I'm stuck at the hospital, but honestly, what's everyone else's excuse?
JK LOL is probs my fave. Also a big fan of "we want to be miserable, too"
hahaha. classic.
Ps isn't there a forum or something where you guys can argue? -
Natasha1224 | 02/08/2012 flag |
I was looking forward to see how this article had 1217 comments. And I see that it's a bunch of TLDR and stuff that shows that a lot of people need to lighten up. I thought the posters were fabulous.
-
Jen | 02/07/2012 flag |
I particularly love the sign Corinthians 6:9 sign that old guy is holding up. (in the LOL JK one) My guess is that he did not find idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers worth protesting.
-
tzugidan | 02/07/2012 flag |
Dear Humans,
I made all men (and women) in my image. Look it up, I said it. I hope you're not implying that I am incompetent. That would be a serious mistake.
...God -
tzugidan | 02/07/2012 flag |
The age-old irony of religion. The "love" of this god you serve, which is supposed to be spread, instead is used to divide and spread anger, hatred, divisiveness and intolerance. I doubt it will ever change. It's this hypocrisy which christians refuse to accpept that repells the very people your christ admonished you to spread his love to... kinda LOL for me personally... but..hey...first amendment and all..so spread away!
-
Random | 02/03/2012 flag |
Marriage and its "pureness" was redefined years ago when we allow individuals to marry at will and divorce hours, days or weeks later without recourse. What is it to you, someone probably divorced already, to judge another individual on who they want to love and have equality with.
-
Waiton | 01/31/2012 flag |
Guys, it's "HappyPlace.com" not "PhilosophicalDipshits.com". Shut up and laugh! (See what I did there?)
-
Frank | 01/30/2012 flag |
Im gay but I married olready lady , but I need to marry Eastern europian gay boy.
Let me know is it possible .
Frank -
Juanne1 | 01/19/2012 flag |
Albert:
If I've misconstrued your remarks, I apologize.
However:
"What basic rights are being denied to people?"
The basic right to marry, to have that marriage recognized and to enjoy the benefits of marriage, which is to say, the right to act as next-of-kin, for example, or the right to have access to spousal benefits, to name but 2 examples. Also, the right to be treated as human beings, not relegated to the status of "them".
As to whether or not the bible has been used to justify the subjugation of women, slavery and other evils, well of course it has. Read your history. As a feminist, even a cursory reading of history has shown me how the church fathers have used the bible (especially the story of Genesis) to defame half the human race for centuries.
"What do you mean by 'grow as a species'?"
I mean that as a species our understanding of what is right and wrong is slowly evolving. We no longer think it is all right to draw and quarter people as a punishment, for instance. Or burn people at the stake because we disagree with their interpretations of the bible. Most of us do not believe that someone should be stoned to death for adultery -- at least, the civilized part of the world. (And I don't apologize for that point of view.) We are coming to realize that the planet is not ours to use and dispose of. Bear baiting, dog fighting and other such "sports" are falling out of favour as people are realizing that animals are living beings that feel pain.
"What tribal laws are those that you are speaking of?"
The laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which were written for a semi-nomadic society which is light years removed from the civilization which now exists in this world.
"What ancient tribal taboos are you meaning?"
See above.
"Do you consider the bible the inspired word of God?"
No.
"So why should I stop worrying that people want to redefine the word marriage but you are worrying about me discussing it? Shouldn't you stop worrying about me?"
My worry about you is that you are going far beyond simple "discussion" and "redefining" of marriage. You want to withhold basic human rights from a segment of the population based on a belief system that, upon inspection, should actually impel you to defend the rights of all people.
"Have you achieved perfection? If not, then why are you judging me and what I'm doing?"
Absolutely not! (I wish) And why should I not judge you? I'm not the one trying to stop people from marrying each other under the guise of religion.
"My argument is that if we allow homosexuals to redefine marriage then we could see polygamists come in and do the same. I have shown that this has been happening in Canada lately.
And I have shown that there are people that are trying to get pedophilia to be it's own sexual origination. If this does happen, and I do believe it's going to happen, then pedophiles will also have a chance to redefine marriage to fit what they want it to be."
Albert, I LIVE in Canada. I am a Canadian, born and bred. We have had same-sex marriage here for quite some time. The sky has not fallen, the sea has not risen to swallow us, nor have 35 million handcarts appeared to transport us all en masse to hell.
You are correct in that the sleazebags who run Bountiful, a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect have appealed to the BC Supreme Court to make polygamy legal. And the Court threw it out on its ear, wisely stating (in what I consider to be a typically Canadian decision) that the harm polygamy does outweighs religious rights. Now they will probably appeal this all the way to the Federal Supreme Court, but considering that criminal charges are pending, I suspect that they will have a tough go of it, to say the least.
But polygamy has not swept the land. Neither have pedophiles set up shop openly. There will always be people who step over the lines but just because there are a few people who are bad does not mean that we should deny an entire group of other people their basic rights.
After all, one could turn the argument on its head and say that considering how many priests have molested children, all religions should be banned!
(As an aside, I was particularly annoyed that the Mormon Church spent millions of dollars in California to campaign against gay marriage. They should have used those funds to clean up their own backyards; namely, to
put an end to Warren Jeffs and his ilk.)
Basically, my argument boils down to the fact that whatever 2 consenting adults wish to do should be their business. Countries that have legalized same-sex marriages have not seen their societies overwhelmed by polygamy or pedophilia, nor have so-called "normal" families and/or marriages been adversely affected.
I apologize for not responding earlier. I don't wish to sound like a whiner, but I have to deal with chronic migraine. Makes it hard sometimes to be (a) prompt and (b) coherent.
I hope I've been able to answer your questions adequately. -
Albert | 01/18/2012 flag |
Juanne1, You said, "please for the love of God stop using God as an excuse to deny people basic human rights."
Where have I used God as an excuse to deny people basic human rights?
What basic rights are being denied to people?
You said, "50 years ago, people used the bible to justify separation of black and white."
You are correct in part. I don't know if it was the bible that was used, but it was changed because it was wrong to redefine marriage.
You said, "100 years ago, the bible was used to justify denying women the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to be people in their own right."
Again, I'm not sure the bible was used to justify this, but I do know that it was changed because women are now able to vote. It was wrong to say there were not equal to men.
You said, "200 years ago, the bible was used to justify slavery."
What do you mean by this? Are you talking the slavery that was started here in North America? If so, I'm not sure that the bible was the reason it started. But again, it was stopped because it was wrong to own another person.
you said, "Shall we return to those days?"
No, we should not.
You said, "Or do we understand that as we grow as a species, our understanding of what the Creator demands of us grows as well?"
What do you mean by 'grow as a species'?
You said, "Or do we cling to tribal laws written before any understanding of biology, psychology or sociology existed?"
What tribal laws are those that you are speaking of?
You said, "True harmony with the God of all things does not deny the existence of science and all it teaches us; to refuse to use our intellects insults the Creator."
I agree.
You said, "To exclude part of humanity based on ancient tribal taboos is to exclude that part of God who created all of humanity."
What ancient tribal taboos are you meaning?
You said, "Jesus embraced all of his society at the time; he turned no one away except those who refused to come; those who felt themselves "too good" to consort with "sinners"; the "foxes" and "hypocrites" who observed the laws to the nth degree but failed to feel the spirit behind the law."
You are correct. What does this have to do with what I have been talking about?
You said, "Quit reading the bible and start feeling the spirit."
What do you mean by this? Do you consider the bible the inspired word of God? Jesus believed it to be the inspired word of God.
You said, "Quit worrying so much about what the other guy is or is not doing and work on your own spirituality."
So why should I stop worrying that people want to redefine the word marriage but you are worrying about me discussing it? Shouldn't you stop worrying about me?
You said, "When you have achieved perfection, then you may judge."
Have you achieved perfection? If not, then why are you judging me and what I'm doing?
You ended with, "Otherwise, shut the fuck up."
Why? Don't we live in a country where you have the right to tell me all that you want and I have the right to tell you as well?
We all have certain beliefs. Tolerance means that I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me but we do have to live civil with each other and "tolerate" the others beliefs.
Because of that American right that each individual has, I have just as much right to tell you that I believe marriage needs to stay defined as a union between one man and one woman. And you also have the right to tell me that you don't agree with that. Then we can take our differences, create a bill(also a right each individual has) and put it before our legislative government and then, if the people chose, we get our bill passed into a law.
Currently, marriage is defined as something you appear to disagree with. So feel free to present your arguments as to why we should change it. Give me, and others valid reasons as to why you believe we should redefine it. I, in turn, will do the same. Then we can both listen to each others arguments and see if we can come to a reasonable understanding of what is best for everyone.
I have not said anything about the bible saying the way someone is living as right or wrong. I could, but I'm not here to discuss that issue. I'm here to discuss the issue of redefining marriage.
What we need to do is understand that if we redefine marriage to mean something that one group of people want then we open it up to other groups of people to come in and do the same.
My argument is that if we allow homosexuals to redefine marriage then we could see polygamists come in and do the same. I have shown that this has been happening in Canada lately.
And I have shown that there are people that are trying to get pedophilia to be it's own sexual origination. If this does happen, and I do believe it's going to happen, then pedophiles will also have a chance to redefine marriage to fit what they want it to be.
I'm talking about a slippery slope.
Feel free to go through my past comments and you will see what my main argument has been.
I'm not sure how you got the idea that I'm using the bible to justify anything as I have not being doing that. -
Juanne1 | 01/18/2012 flag |
Albert, please for the love of God stop using God as an excuse to deny people basic human rights.
50 years ago, people used the bible to justify separation of black and white.
100 years ago, the bible was used to justify denying women the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to be people in their own right. (I note that the USA still has no equal right amendment in the constitution, due in a large part to hard-line bible bangers).
200 years ago, the bible was used to justify slavery.
Shall we return to those days? Or do we understand that as we grow as a species, our understanding of what the Creator demands of us grows as well? Or do we cling to tribal laws written before any understanding of biology, psychology or sociology existed?
True harmony with the God of all things does not deny the existence of science and all it teaches us; to refuse to use our intellects insults the Creator. To exclude part of humanity based on ancient tribal taboos is to exclude that part of God who created all of humanity.
Jesus embraced all of his society at the time; he turned no one away except those who refused to come; those who felt themselves "too good" to consort with "sinners"; the "foxes" and "hypocrites" who observed the laws to the nth degree but failed to feel the spirit behind the law.
Quit reading the bible and start feeling the spirit. Quit worrying so much about what the other guy is or is not doing and work on your own spirituality. When you have achieved perfection, then you may judge.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up. -
Albert | 01/12/2012 flag |
Euronymous, Can you pin point something so I know what you are meaning? I've got quite a few comments on here.
-
Euronymous | 01/12/2012 flag |
Read your previous comments Einstein.
-
Albert | 01/12/2012 flag |
Euronymous, Who is judging the homosexuals here? We are discussing whether we should redefine the word marriage. This has nothing to do with whether homosexuals are doing something morally wrong or not.
voiceofreason, I just wanted you to know I have not forgotten about your replies. I'm just so busy I have not had a chance to rebut them as of yet. I hope you are okay if I take some more time to respond. -
Euronymous | 01/12/2012 flag |
Children, children...
Let the homosexuals do as they please. It is God's duty to judge them. NOT yours. Let them be. Leave your incompetence elsewhere please. Thank you, and God bless. -
voiceofreason | 01/06/2012 flag |
by the way angie5514...the " " of my posts were from Albert....not me...because he wanted me to answer all of his questions.
You can't italicize on this board, to indicate quotation reference.
I was merely answering HIS questions.
It might help if you read all of it and not just the parts the bothered you.
....And an apology would be nice. -
voiceofreason | 01/06/2012 flag |
@angie5514...easy there. Try reading again. I'm actually on YOUR side.
who's citing Fox News? I don't watch Fox news (unless I want a laugh). Pat Robertson is not my idea of an info resource. And Glen Beck's rheotric makes me nauseous.
I have ZERO issue and/or problems with homosexuality or gay marriage....at all. and i didn't refer to any website at all. So I'm not sure what you are yelling at me about. I was just telling albert that if he was interested in learning about some historical events where the governing bodies imposed their "ideas" onto others like the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition....it was just a google search away...because albert asked me to qualify my original statement....which I did. AND every historical event i mentioned....did actually happen. I don't need
Department of Justice for statistics website to confirm it. The Civil Right of 1964 did happen....and was expanded to include sexual orientation The Spanish Inquisition did happen and the Holocaust happened (despite Pat Robertson, who probably thinks it didn't...i have no idea about that).
I actually support gay marriage on the grounds that who consenting adults marry & why, is no one's business...especially a governing body.
Please read my 2 posts again. And then an apology would be nice. -
HappyWoman | 01/06/2012 flag |
mmm.. I loooove my slippery slope.... ;)
-
Angie55414 | 01/06/2012 flag |
@voiceofreason
Citing Fox news is as bad as citing wikipedia. If you are actually trying to make a valid argument try to use respectable sites. Or else no one will take you seriously.
Try the Department of Justice for statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=3 or many other reliable sources.
And remember just because Pat Robertson or Glenn Beck at some point told you that homosexuality was wrong does not make it true. -
the police | 01/04/2012 flag |
Albert, I think you might be gay.
-
voiceofreason | 01/03/2012 flag |
Albert. I will answer your questions one by one...even the last one...which is so utterly not worth answering but, I'll do it for the sake of education.
"Then why do you need the governments approval to get married?"
Answer: because currently many states do not allow this and the marriage contract is not viewed as legal. no one's "approval" isn't needed but the recognition of a legal & binding contract (which is exaclt what marriage is) is required for it to be upheld as per contractual law.
"They can enter into relationships they whomever they wish.
They can live together, love each other, raise children, etc etc. The government is not preventing them from doing any of that."
Answer: this may be true, but if its not recognized legally, there is no protection for any of it. people entered into heterosexual marriage contracts have certain legal rights and protections under the law.
"we've been there a few times in our history. no good came out of it....ever
"Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you are meaning by this comment.
What were the few times in history that you are referring to?"
Answer: sure....I'd be glad too. before the civl rights movement in the U.S. there were actual laws that stated people of different races could not marry. it was illegal in many southern states. In the European countries during WWII, people of certain religious beliefs were put into concentration camps. many were extermintated. During the Spanish Inquisition, anyone outside the religious beleifs of the "state" were
tortured into conversion and most often killed. During the Roman Empire, many Christians (along with others) were put to death via the coloseum...because they did not follow the laws and views of "the state" Back to this country...before the expansion of the civil rights act...people actualy lost their jobs for the singular reason of being gay. many also were kicked out schools and homes...for the same reason. I can go on and on...but it would be quicker if you google some of the events I mentioned.
"You ended with, "If your faith is so against it...then you are free to believe what you want and teach what you want in your household. I'll always fight for your right to do so...but its only right that you leave others to do the same."
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying I can believe and teach whatever I want in my household as long as I leave you the right to do the same in yours, correct?
So if I believe that torturing babies for fun is an okay thing, you are okay with me believing and teaching that as long as I leave you alone to believe and teach what you want in your own household, right?"
Answer: no, albert. that's not even a real argument and you know it. First of all, i'm pretty sure I mentioned the concept of concenting adults. But if you want to go the silly argument route, I'll take the path with you for a short while. Torturing anyone or anything is not "ok" because that actually infringes on the rights of others' life, liberty & pursuit of happiness that all have the right to have. My meaning in this statement is whatever religious views and/or beliefs you have...its yours to have an enjoy. doesn't mean you can force that onto others that either do or do not agree with it.
You don't agree with gay marriage or gay anything, Albert. I get that. And that's your right to do so. It's neither my job nor desire to change your mind.
my singular point is....Tolerance is not the "acceptance" of ones lifestyles and/or beliefs. No one actually cares what one "accepts" in this world. It's actually the idea that you have the right to search out and enjoy happiness in this world...and others have the right to that search as well. -
Albert | 01/03/2012 flag |
voiceofreason, You said, "what consenting adults do...when they do it and with whom is really no one else's business."
Then why do you need the governments approval to get married?
Consenting adults are already legally allowed to do what they want, with whomever the want to, and in the privacy of their own home.
They can enter into relationships they whomever they wish.
They can live together, love each other, raise children, etc etc. The government is not preventing them from doing any of that.
You said, "and if you want to talk about "slippery slopes" let's talk about what can happen when we allow people's personal choices (that do no harm to anyone else, takes no food out of anyone's mouth nor money out of anyone's pocket) to be dictated. we've been there a few times in our history. no good came out of it....ever"
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you are meaning by this comment.
What were the few times in history that you are referring to?
You ended with, "If your faith is so against it...then you are free to believe what you want and teach what you want in your household. I'll always fight for your right to do so...but its only right that you leave others to do the same."
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying I can believe and teach whatever I want in my household as long as I leave you the right to do the same in yours, correct?
So if I believe that torturing babies for fun is an okay thing, you are okay with me believing and teaching that as long as I leave you alone to believe and teach what you want in your own household, right?
I'm not sure that is what you are meaning, but that is what your comment states. Perhaps you might want to rethink that comment and reiterate what you really meant to say. -
voiceofreason | 01/03/2012 flag |
its very simple....what consenting adults do...when they do it and with whom is really no one else's business.
and if you want to talk about "slippery slopes" let's talk about what can happen when we allow people's personal choices (that do no harm to anyone else, takes no food out of anyone's mouth nor money out of anyone's pocket) to be dictated. we've been there a few times in our history. no good came out of it....ever
If your faith is so against it...then you are free to believe what you want and teach what you want in your household. I'll always fight for your right to do so...but its only right that you leave others to do the same. -
Albert | 12/28/2011 flag |
CM,
You said, "slippery slope argument is completely baseless and has been intelligently debunked time and time again."
How has the slippery slope been debunked time and time again?
The slippery slope is not about how the laws are here and now but rather what they could be down the road in 10 to 15 years from now.
The slippery slope could happen slowly and almost unnoticed if we are not careful. That is the whole reason I'm bring it up.
You say that pedophilia is not a part of this argument but it is. It's part of the slippery slope.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/#ixzz1ZHzQn3Sy
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=7027
These two links show that it's not just in Canada that there are people fighting right now for the rights of pedophiles. And these are not just one dudes fight. It is a group along with that one dude. And it's very possible that there are other fights going on that I have not heard of yet.
There is/was a group called Man-Boy love that was advocating for the very same thing. I haven't been able to find resources for them so I am only mentioning that I had heard about them at one time. I don't have a lot of details other than they were advocating for pedophilia to be consider it's own sexual orientation as well. I don't know what happened to the group.
Around 25 years ago homosexuality was something that was done in private. It wasn't in the news or headlines anywhere. Now, it has become more acceptable by the general public and homosexuals are coming out more and more.
If this change in public opinion could be altered by the homosexual supporters, then it's very likely that pedophilia supporters will too, someday, be able to come out as well.
That is why it is called a slippery slope. It's a ever so slow process of a whittling down of the public opinion that something is right or wrong until it becomes mainstream. Once it's there, who's to say they two couldn't demand that they could redefine marriage as well?
It seems to me that if one group of people(homosexuals) could become a prominent enough advocate for their own rights that other groups(Polygamists, Polyamorists, Beastialitist and Pedophiles) could, in time, also become advocates for their own rights as well.
And if you don't believe me that these could possibly be on the rise look at what one homosexual said in regards to the New York Legislature’s decision to pass the so-called “Marriage Equality Act,” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/10/mounting-doubts-about-same-sex-ldquomarriagerdquo):
“It’s definitely not something I’m unhappy about.” But he wondered about the appropriateness of only extending new rights to gay people who embraced the specific model of heterosexual marriage. “Of course there are many other kinds of relationships, especially within queer culture, whether it’s open relationships or nonsexual companionship or polyamorous relationships. These nontraditional relationships have been championed in the gay community in the past, and I do think all types of relationships should be honored, and not just the people who fit this model.”
This person mentions "Polyamorous" relationships. There is a key that those are already being accepted by the gay community in New York at least.
And here is another article that states the same kind of idea that if gay marriage is allowed then why not others?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/07/22/why_should_polygamy_be_illegal_.html
"I am in favor of gay marriage, but it’s going to be seen as increasingly arbitrary to say that people who have a moral and religious belief in multiple unions hold unacceptable views. (I do find polygamy inherently oppressive to women and distasteful. But if the participants don’t, so what if many of us are appalled.)"
And even in the comments below the article the people commenting seem to be saying that they see it as wrong but that it's up for debate.
This slippery slope is showing itself to have already started.
From what I see this is far from debunked. I believe what I wrote above has a lot of validity to declaring the slippery slope a very possible issue that could be in our very future.
So again I ask you, how has the slippery slope been debunked time and time again?
Then you said, "Marriage cannot happen without the CONSENT of ADULTS, same as any other legally binding contract."
I agree. You are completely correct in that statement; for now.
And the whole polygamy issue....
Thanks for the article. I had one similar but it didn't have as much information.
But what was interesting was that in the article you provided, there was a link to another article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/22/bc-polygamy-ruling.html) and it had the following in it:
"The competing interests underscore the complexities of a case that has tested the boundaries of religious freedom, the definition of marriage and the role of criminal laws in regulating morality."
Though you are correct in that polygamy "had nothing whatsoever to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage in this country.", it does show that the slippery slope is happening in other countries already. Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Canada already has an Equality Marriage definition on the books. So the polygamist just took the next logical step in trying to redefine marriage again to suit their group of people.
My issue isn't with what gay people want to do or not do. My issue is with asking the questions as to if we should redefine what marriage means.
If we consider the arguments I have presented in many posts here, as well as this one, I think there is enough information to see that the slippery slope is something that we should really consider if we are going to redefine the definition of marriage.
Try to look at what I have written from a non biased view point. Try to understand that I'm not looking at a change to bash homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. But that I'm trying to show implications of issues that could very well become reality.
We need to ask ourselves if this is what we really want. If you are willing to live with the idea that it could be possible that pedophiles could some day get their day in court then just be aware that you don't do it without knowledge that this could happen but that you have weighed the options and have made a knowledgeable choice.
Most of the problems in this country are because of politicians that don't look 5-10 years down the road and then we are in trouble because of choices made that didn't take time into account. -
CM | 12/27/2011 flag |
Albert, the slippery slope argument is completely baseless and has been intelligently debunked time and time again. Marriage cannot happen without the CONSENT of ADULTS, same as any other legally binding contract. http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali
Furthermore, I can assure you that Canada is not on its way to orgiastic poly-pedo-bestiophilic marriage. People are ignoring your links because they are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The polygamy case, brought before the courts by a Mormon group, was based on an argument about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and had nothing whatsoever to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage in this country. And regardless, our anti-polygamy laws were upheld by the court. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html
As for the supposed pedophilia activists, first of all, one dude's testimony regarding his opinion on the subject is not going to undo an entire society's strident rejection of this practice. Second, there are very clearly valid moral and ethical reasons for forbidding marriage to children - namely, that it is extremely damaging to the children. There are no equivalent arguments to be made against same-sex marriage, because it does not harm anyone. Third, see my comment regarding consenting adults above. -
Albert | 12/21/2011 flag |
Tom,
You said, "Me and my spouse are forced to separate because there is no gay marriage."
What do you mean "forced to separate"? Where do you live?
For the record, I'm fighting to not have the definition of marriage changed to anything other then what it already stands for. And I believe I have good reasons to not change it.
I would never tell people they can't live together or be with a person of the same sex. And the United States doesn't restrict people from living together.
But I can, and will, legislate the definition of marriage to the best of my ability. I don't believe that the slippery slope that it will cause is being seen by those that want to redefine the word marriage to include same-sex couples. There are implications that go far beyond just what homosexual supporters are wanting. And each American has the right to legislate what they believe is the right thing to do for the country. That is why we have all the ability to vote and run for public office.
My beliefs are that homosexuality is just as morally wrong as lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, gossiping and so on. It's not a "greater" sin as some Christians might propose.
And for those that believe that all Christian's think that homosexuality is the worst sin possible, please allow me to say, I'm sorry for those who have been treated wrongly for someone else's beliefs. It is not right to treat people as less human then another person or ourselves.
I do have to point out and say that there are no rights that are being taken away here in the states. Each individual has the same rights as every other individual.
They might not have the rights they believe they are entitled to, but we all have the same rights. Anything more we want, we must first put it before the government and legislate it.
The truth is that there are laws in place to restrict people in all time. But those laws restrict everyone equally. They don't single out a certain group(or person) and at the same time allow a different group(or person) of people to do what is supposed to be restricted. -
cathy | 12/21/2011 flag |
I thought this was the "happy place". Those comments are not happy. IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING-DON'T DO IT!
-
tom | 12/13/2011 flag |
Me and my spouse are forced to separate because there is no gay marriage. So my spouse cannot immigrant here and so as his country Not allow me to. We both fall into depression after being separate. We are waiting for the law to change so we can be together again. We never find women attractive. Just like straight men don't find men attractive. Our brain tell us so, not up to us can change that. I just don't understand why people here so against gay. We are human we have feeling too. We are everyday people just like everybody. For those who are stripping other people's rights, life, and victimized minority you know where you will go after.
-
Jason | 12/08/2011 flag |
I can't believe you clowns are having a real discussion about being gay on happyplace.com lol I love cock
-
Albert | 11/28/2011 flag |
EYJG,
You have said a lot in your comment.
I would like to point out that one common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue.
Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges do this.
I'm sure you also have in mind what you would define marriage to be something specific to you, right?
Unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like, you will be limiting marriage to be something you think it is.
If you're argument is not that anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like, then you're for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.
So the real question is, which definition should we use?
It's fine for someone to argue that their definition of "two people who love each other" is better than my definition of "one man, one woman," or someone else's definition of "one man, multiple women," but we need to start off by understanding that we're arguing definitions, not rights.
It's not unconstitutional to adopt either my definition, your definition or someone else's definition, as long as it's applied equally to every individual.
The Constitution doesn't recognize rights for combinations of people; rights only belong to individuals. So one can't say that a man and five women have a right to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state's definition of what marriage is—boundaries which are equally applied to every individual.
So the boundaries we place on marriage need to be relevant to the institution of marriage in order to be legitimate.
So the talk we should be having is about the reasons why we each think the country should use our definition?
You said, "The law of the land is that as long as the two joining together are of legal age, sound mind, and are not under any duress, the marriage is valid and legally binding."
What is your resource for this law of the land?
Which land are you speaking of?
Because America does not follow such a law of the land. That is why same-sex marriage supporters are in the courts right now trying to redefine marriage.
You say, "But don't tell me who I can and can't marry, because I promise that you really, really don't want me in the position of having to dictate that same thing to you."
But isn't that the point of government; to legislate what we, as a country, deem to be morally/economically beneficial for the country as a whole?
Isn't that what homosexual supporters are trying to do in court right now?
We all have different viewpoints/worldviews that we choose to live by. But government and legislation is what we use to keep our moral/economic view point as the one the country follows. As that changes, so does the country.
So until we legislate that marriage means what you want it to mean, I have every right to dictate to you who you can marry and who you can't. That is the right of every individual citizen of our great country.
So lets discuss all of the reasons why you believe that your idea of what marriage should be is better then my idea of what marriage should be.
Then we can both weigh the arguments and see who actually has the better argument. It's very possible that you will make some great arguments that could sway me to your way of thinking or vice-verse. -
Albert | 11/28/2011 flag |
Pamela Born,
Well, the only thing I would be hiding in my closet is probably laundry that I'm needing to do. :O)
My issue is to ask the question if we should be redefining marriage.
What I'm looking for is the best argument for both sides. If America decides to change it from a union of one man and one woman to something else, is it the right thing to do?
I want to make sure that all of those out there that are on one side or another understand that there are implications to changing that definition.
Should we redefine marriage to mean a union between one person and one person, regardless of gender?
If so, what do we do, when someone else wants to come along and redefine marriage to mean a union between one person and multiple people? Or what if pedophiles want to come along and make it one adult and one child or even multiple children?
Does this sound absurd? Sure it does. But that doesn't mean it wont happen.
I have provided some evidence that shows in Canada that there is reason to believe this could possibly happen here in the states.
Canada has equality marriages which allow unions of same sex individuals.
And, also in Canada, there are polygamists in court fighting for their right to be included into what equality marriages mean for them.
And on top of all that there are activists putting a bill before the Canadian Parliament to consider Pedophiles as just another sexual orientation like homosexuality and heterosexuality.
If this passes, and polygamist win their day in court, it's very likely that Pedophiles could be in court next asking for them to be included into equality marriages just like everyone else.
Is this happening right now? No. But there is enough reason to believe that this would be the natural progression of this issue if everything plays out as they want it to. And quite frankly, I don't see it stopping. It might take a while, but the same has been said about homosexuality being accepted as it has. The longer you push, the more reasonable that it will be accepted as some point.
It's all just a matter of time.
So all that to say that we really need to answer the questions as to why this is being done.
Two gay men can already walk down the isle, profess to stay committed to each other and live a long life being monogamist to each other. And love doesn't even have to be a factor in all of that.
But the real reason marriage is being slowly redefined is so that there is acceptance, which as of now, there isn't.
Do I see that changing? Yes, I do. Again, it's all just a matter of time.
But the real question is what are the implications beyond what homosexual supporters are wanting? Are they willing to say that the slippery slope this could cause is really worth what they are wanting?
Or, should we stop where we are at and find some other solution to the issue at hand?
Pamela, You should understand that I am not dealing with whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I'm not dictating where homosexuals will end up if they die. I have no problem with homosexuals wanting to live as they want.
But I do have an issue with redefining a word that means one thing and could really cause a slippery slope if we are not careful.
Lets deal with the issue at hand and leave all the side issues out of it. Once we can do that, perhaps we can see clearly enough to know how to work through the real issue. -
Pamela Born | 11/27/2011 flag |
Hey Albert....I think you protest too much....hiding something in YOUR closet???
-
EYJG | 11/24/2011 flag |
My favorite T-shirt so far: "If your marriage needs defending, you need marital counseling, not a constitutional amendment."
The same can be said if your marriage needs to be "redefined." Mine certainly doesn't.
Let's get real here. The reasons some people are getting all antsy about gay people getting married are the same reasons some people got antsy when Caucasians and African Americans got married: A few people thought that they should be able to dictate who could and could not enter into a marriage. They failed at being able to keep on dictating what color your spouse could be, and so now they are working very hard to dictate what gender your spouse can be. They spout their religious beliefs, as if their interpretation of God is the only valid one -- or, horror upon horror, as if they are afraid of finding out that what they are reading as gospel truth isn't really all there is . . . to truth itself. They attack gay people at every turn, screaming obscene untruths and making incongruent comparisons designed to falsify the simplest reality: that you love who you love, that being gay is as much a choice as being not-gay, and that real adults don't have to scare anyone with threats of hell, just to get their voices heard. Instead, real adults recognize that it isn't their right to dictate the color or gender of another person's spouse, and that every adult capable of making a lifelong commitment to another adult ought to be able to do so -- without interference from other people. If those two people aren't inviting you to their wedding, stay out of their business, since they obviously have better and more productive things to do with their time than to dictate to you what your life should be.
Really, it's simple. If gay peoples' marriages were legally recognized, then the federal government would have to grant us the same rights as they do to non-gay people bonded in marriage. The government would lose about half the money it collects from married gay people, even though our paying taxes to the same government as our married non-gay brothers and sisters should guarantee us the same rights as our married non-gay brothers and sisters. The government would lose its right to tax the property and inheritances we receive when we become widowed after our spouses pass away, even though our paying taxes to the same government as our widowed non-gay brothers and sisters should guarantee us the same rights as our widowed non-gay brothers and sisters. The government would have to force states to honor Sections 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the US Constitution, since the US Constitution trumps any state's perceived right to deny the legality of any person's legal proceedings from another state. In short, if you have a legal driver's license issued in Maryland, then you are also legally able to drive in Kansas. Why then, is it that only some peoples' legal marriage licenses are recognized in all US states and territories, but the legal marriage licenses of others' marriages are not?
And what of this "traditional marriage" segment? Traditional marriage, you say? Do you mean the tradition of two old men making a bargain, where one is the seller of his young daughter and the other is the buyer and recipient of not only the girl, but also a plot of land, a few animals, and a little bit of money? Or, are you speaking of the tradition in which two adults of legal age and sound mind meet, fall in love, and become spiritually and legally bound in matrimonial union? I feel pity for your daughters if you're speaking of the first tradition. If you're talking about the second tradition, then . . . I'm not sure why the gender of my spouse vexes you so, since I'm the one who's marrying her and you're not even invited to the wedding.
For all my non-gay brothers and sisters, I will say this to you: It is none of my business what gender you choose to marry. The law of the land is that as long as the two joining together are of legal age, sound mind, and are not under any duress, the marriage is valid and legally binding. The reason that some of you want to "redefine" that has nothing to do with whether I'm going to hell. You're afraid that YOU'RE going to hell because someone told you that you would if you didn't keep your noses in our business. If you think I'm going to hell, then pray for me. But don't tell me who I can and can't marry, because I promise that you really, really don't want me in the position of having to dictate that same thing to you.
You pick the color and gender of your own spouse. Respect my right to do so, as well. -
Albert | 11/21/2011 flag |
DD,
You said, "Polygamy used to be legal."
Where? This would be an interesting fact I am not familiar with.
You then said, "And in some countries it still is."
Which countries are those? I'm not familiar with them.
You said, "...my great-great-great grandfather had over 4 wives at the same time..."
Did he marry them all at the same time or did he marry each one on their own?
You said, "Love is love, and that's what marriage is all about, two people who love each other becoming bonded and being able to declare that bond through something special."
So lets go with the idea that all that you said is completely correct.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying people have to get married to declare that the bond they have with someone else is special, right?
Is love also a requirement for marriage or can you marry someone that you don't love?
You said, "It's love that matters not what others think is morally right."
So then you would agree that if a man loves a boy then it doesn't matter what others think is morally right, it's okay for that man to marry that boy?
You finished by saying, "No one should be denied the right to marry, it's not right."
Who has been denied the right to marry? -
DD | 11/21/2011 flag |
People in Same-sex relationships just want to be able to say they are in a same sex relationship and not feel like they're committing some sort of crime because of it.
Polygamy used to be legal. And in some countries it still is. In my family tree, my great-great-great grandfather had over 4 wives at the same time and his brothers had more than one wife at the same time. It's love that matters not what others think is morally right. And if both sides of the party agree to it then fuck everyone else. Who really cares if marriage gets redefined? It should. And so should love be redefined. People seem to think you can only love those of the opposite sex or with a different love, you can love those in your family or your friends. Love is love, and that's what marriage is all about, two people who love each other becoming bonded and being able to declare that bond through something special. No one should be denied the right to marry, it's not right.. -
Albert | 11/16/2011 flag |
Alexis,
I agree with you a everything you said up until you said, "NO ONE is EXLUDED".
This is where we differ on what we believe.
But I believe I can show you what is reasonable evidence that what I believe is true.
This is completely off topic so I will leave this as it is unless you care to want to discuss it further.
You said "Oh and Albert the reason you don’t know your facts is because you don’t search for them. Your theory is based on YOUR own Moral. There has been study that there is a gene in males. (Look it up) this study is YEARS old. "
I have looked. I have not found anything that supports your claim.
Maybe you could provide this evidence so that I can know what you know.
I want to be clear. If you can present evidence that shows there is a gene in males/females whatever, I'm very willing to read it over and even change my mind if that is the case.
You said, "Furthermore, Homosexuality is a feeling. there is no choice..."
First, what exactly does this mean by that? Where does this get you?
Not all the feelings we have are morally okay. Just because we are born with a certain affinity to do something doesn't mean it's morally okay.
But again, you are bringing up issues that are not a part of the issue at hand, which is same-sex marriage.
I have not been trying to anger anyone, but to discuss the issue of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and if it is something that should be done because of the slippery slope it will cause.
You have claimed that I don't know my facts and yet, I have shared several times the evidence that in Canada the slippery slope is already in place and starting.
Equality marriages are allowed in Canada right now and polygamists are in court wanting their idea of marriage to be accepted.
And also in Canada, a parliamentary session on a bill relating to sexual offenses against children, psychology experts claimed that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality is happening.
Once pedophilia is defined as it's own sexual orientation, comparable to homosexuality and heterosexuality, they too will be wanting to redefine marriage to fit what they are wanting.
Each time I present the links for these issues in Canada, they are ignored by the people I'm presenting them to. Instead they would rather jump on me for comparing them to pedophiles, which is not what I was doing.
You are completely correct that all this is slowly happening around me. And for the most part, I don't really care if homosexuals do as they please.
But to be clear, I am not promoting anger towards gays.
I'm trying to show what is happening out there, right now, so that we don't make the same mistakes here in the US when we decide to redefine marriage.
Most homosexual supporters, whether they are gay or not, agree that pedophilia is wrong. But, just like you will say to me, that change doesn't come right away but it always comes...
Be for warned.
You protest now to what I'm saying now, but I'm hoping that down the road when marriage does get redefined to include same-sex couples you will remember some of the things I have said, because you will see the natural progression that is already happening in Canada will start to happen here. Then maybe in time, you will understand what I was trying to really say here.
My issue is not with homosexuals but with the redefinition of what marriage is. Everything else is just side issues to me. -
Alexis | 11/16/2011 flag |
This is to everyone, I stopped going back and forth with Albert a long time ago. We are only doing the same thing he is doing to us. So sometimes when people are left to speak to themselves, they then are essentially left silent drowning in their own thoughts because no one really cares to hear them. Everyone has their own morals and this has been proven: all believes a different. Everyone is entitled.. We don’t have to change his mind about anything. The fact of the matter is a change has started and everything he does not agree with is happening around him. We are all children of GOD... We are all made in his image, he loves unconditionally, therefore NO ONE is EXLUDED. Love doesn’t discriminate and it is unconditional whether between a male and female or same sex.. Albert does nothing but anger people with his ignorance but it our fault because we entertain it. Relax, change doesn't come right away but it always comes....
Oh and Albert the reason you don’t know your facts is because you don’t search for them. Your theory is based on YOUR own Moral. There has been study that there is a gene in males.. (Look it up) this study is YEARS old. Furthermore, Homosexuality is a feeling... there is no choice... The Bible has been altered by MAN and this because Man started to dictate what was Moral. But God is Love and LOVE; it unconditional my dear. He loves you too… -
Alexis | 11/16/2011 flag |
This is to everyone, I stopped going back and forth with Albert a long time ago. We are only doing the same thing he is doing to us. So sometimes when people are left to speak to themselves, they then are essentially left silent drowning in their own thoughts because no one really cares to hear them. Everyone has their own morals and this has been proven: all believes a different. Everyone is entitled.. We don’t have to change his mind about anything. The fact of the matter is a change has started and everything he does not agree with is happening around him. We are all children of GOD... We are all made in his image, he loves unconditionally, therefore NO ONE is EXLUDED. Love doesn’t discriminate and it is unconditional whether between a male and female or same sex.. Albert does nothing but anger people with his ignorance but it our fault because we entertain it. Relax, change doesn't come right away but it always comes....
Oh and Albert the reason you don’t know your facts is because you don’t search for them. Your theory is based on YOUR own Moral. There has been study that there is a gene in males.. (Look it up) this study is YEARS old. Furthermore, Homosexuality is a feeling... there is no choice... The Bible has been altered by MAN and this because Man started to dictate what was Moral. But God is Love and LOVE; it unconditional my dear. He loves you too… -
Albert | 11/16/2011 flag |
edison,
The issue isn't about keeping people from being with who they want to be with, but rather if there are valid reasons to redefine what marriage is.
If a man wants to be with another man, there's nothing I can say about that. They are adults and can do whatever they want to do. And two women as well, but I do have a right to say that we will not allow marriage to be legislated to mean something other than what it already means.
Now, that being said, you also have the right to go through the legislative channels to get it changed to whatever you want it to mean.
And that is where my argument starts. If we allow the meaning of marriage to be redefined we will open it up to be redefined over and over again. This causes a slippery slope that I"m sure not even same-sex supporters really want to happen, if they take the time to really think about the implications. -
edison | 11/16/2011 flag |
Why this burning desire to explain things with "facts"? I think it's a simple matter of what each of us is comfortable with, isn't it? If it's more comfortable for someone to be with men (or with women, or both) for whatever reason, who cares??
-
Tcb | 11/15/2011 flag |
Wow
-
Albert | 11/09/2011 flag |
Jessica612721,
You could really present yourself better by being mature instead of just being profane. Insults don't further your agenda, they just make you sound childish.
zambonimacaroni, You said, "don't compare being gay to having a disease such as cystic fibrosis, your argument is just plain insulting,"
Perhaps I worded this all wrong. I wasn't trying to be insulting. I apologize for that and I want to make it clear that I am only trying to bring some sense to your claim that you were born that way.
I was trying to make a point that being born a certain way doesn't always mean it's morally right or healthy. And I'm not saying homosexuality is one or the other, I'm merely pointing out that you were claiming that because you were born that way, it's supposed to be accepted.
You think differently then I do and that's fine.
But to make the claim that just because you are born a certain way means that we should all accept it is expecting something that is not required.
You have no problem pointing to pedophilia as something that is wrong and you don't even blink an eye. Why? Because it isn't right. And I agree with you on that one. Which makes my point more relevant.
I even sent you a link showing you that there are people out there that are wanting to make it seem that pedophilia is normal because they were BORN that way.
See the connection? What you call natural for gays, you call unnatural for pedophiles and yet you have no problem saying that pedophiles are not natural and we shouldn't accept them as they are. Even if they are born that way, right?
What if they are born that way?
What if them being BORN that way is just natural for them and what they do?
According to your argument that we should accept homosexuals because they are born that way, then we should be doing the same for pedophiles, if they are actually born that way, right?
But right now, we don't have proof for either homosexuals or pedophiles as being born that way. For all we know, it is all just behavioral. And yes, we could say the same thing to heterosexuals.
All I have done was taken your claim, of being born that way and looked to see if it worked for all others. And as you can see it falls short.
But none of this addresses the issue of redefining what marriage means.
You have said, "..., because you idiots just can't accept the truth."
But yet you have not provide me any evidence that warrants me to accept any "truth" you have presented.
Because you believe you are born that way isn't proof, it's an assertion.
When you can provide proof that I could see as a objective truth, rather then your opinion, then we can talk about it and I could possibly change my mind on this issue. But yet you have not.
You said, "Grave issues, you heterosexuals have already brought straight marriage to the toilet, with divorce rates over 50%. So, the truth is, most of society and the population is straight, most of the society is hetero, so, here's the sad truth, Albert, if you don't like the way the country and the world is going, then you heterosexuals only have yourselves to blame."
I completely agree and I do blame heterosexuals for ruining so many marriages. I am of the opinion that heterosexuals have done just as you have said. And it is very sad.
That still does not mean that we should allow a different definition of what marriage is as it won't improve the numbers.
Rather we should be holding people accountable to the commitments they have made. And until then that 50% number you mentioned will not go down.
You also said, "I am sure, Albert, you would like to throw out the word 'Gay Lifestyle'"
I did that once before and I have been very diligent not to say that again. I also apologized to you about that and asked you for a different word/phrase that would not be insulting to you, to which you never replied.
So because of that, I have not used it again, and I will not use it again.
I am continually trying to reword what I write so that I don't insult you in anyway. It is my intention to give you as much respect as I would hope from you. And even when you don't give it to me, I do not return the disrespect intentionally.
You said, "Try walking in my shoes, Albert, and see the hate, intolerance, bullshit, and just plain christian inhumanity I have had to deal with for a few decades."
I get that you see a lot of hate. I hope that it isn't from me because I'm only wanting to address the issue of redefining marriage and not ever attack you directly.
I am sorry that you have had to deal with it and I agree that you shouldn't have to have that happen. I can't say I'm sorry enough to express how I'm sorry for the hate you have been given. Especially from so called Christians. And I do understand that there are Christians out there that would do this. But please don't look at what Jesus did or said through the reflection of those that have treated you badly.
As far as the tolerance issue, I'm still not clear on what you define as tolerance. It would be easier to understand if we could clear that up. I believe we see tolerance as something different.
zambonimacaroni,
To make it clear to you and everyone else reading these posts:
I don't hate you.
I don't judge you for being homosexual.
I don't condemn you or anything of the sort.
My main concern here is that we discuss the issue at hand in an intelligent manor that gives growth to everyone looking at the facts of the issue and not the emotional ties to it.
I get that this can be a hard issue for anyone that has an emotional tie to this. But that is why I want to deal with the issue of the definition of marriage and not the other stuff. There isn't a reason to be emotional if we deal with that issue specifically.
***@viterbo.edu
you said, "you will see that polygamy was pretty common."
Polygamist have a leg up on homosexuals in the sense that even if it's multiple women and one man, they at least have the capabilities to persist the community at large. But the definition of family has changed as well in this instance. This is a different issue so I will leave it at this for now.
Back to your original comment:
I don't think you will find a case where one man and two or more women walked up the isle at the same time.
I'm sure what you will find is that it was normally one man and one woman getting married at one time and then that same man, at a different time got married to another women.
In history, the man was just allowed to have more than one marriage. We haven't changed the definition of marriage, we've only limited the number of concurrent marriages a person can have.
Does that make sense? -
zambonimacaroni | 11/09/2011 flag |
Jessica, thanks, I could not agree with you more, Albert is just a dumbass dipshit asshole self righteous religious retard. Albert, did your mother drop you on your head a few dozen times when you were younger, or were you a water baby?
-
Jessica612721 | 11/09/2011 flag |
Albert, your a freaking idiot! Get a life!
-
zambonimacaroni | 11/09/2011 flag |
And Albert, please don't compare being gay to having a disease such as cystic fibrosis, your argument is just plain insulting, just as if I told you that being christian, and worshiping a man who has been dead for 2 millenniums is a sign that you are not only delusional, but you are weak minded, and you show signs of being easily brainwashed, and thaat you are being controlled by a cult. It cuts both ways, asshole.
-
zambonimacaroni | 11/09/2011 flag |
Albert, Grave issues, you heterosexuals have already brought straight marriage to the toilet, with divorce rates over 50%. So, the truth is, most of society and the population is straight, most of the society is hetero, so, here's the sad truth, Albert, if you don't like the way the country and the world is going, then you heterosexuals only have yourselves to blame. While I am gay, I am in a minority as far as being gay, being that I think for myself, and I don't go to parades, or bars, or any of that shit. I am sure, Albert, you would like to throw out the word "Gay Lifestyle" To define me, but, truth is, that term, gay lifestyle is bullshit, it's a buzzword invented by a lot of christian cult asswipes, to try to stereotype gays and lesbians as you see the most outrageous examples of gay and lesbian people in the media, in parades, and so forth. While I am not defined by my sexual orientation, it's part of who I am, and It's part of how I view the word. Try walking in my shoes, Albert, and see the hate, intolerance, bullshit, and just plain christian inhumanity I have had to deal with for a few decades. Then again, you probably would do nothing but make up bullshit excuses like you always do. Because, I can also stereotype heterosexuals, and christians too, and living here in the South, believe me, there are many hetero christians who are not only the biggest hypocrites, but also the people who are most full of shit, and the most moral-less assholes there are.
Simply said again, I know I was born gay, it is the way I was created, so therefore, I no longer give a fuck, what christians asshole dumbfucks like you think, because you idiots just can't accept the truth. Please, just go away, and go worship Jay-sus, and everything will be okay, ya dumbass douchebag. -
zambonimacaroni | 11/09/2011 flag |
Albert, please don't link being gay to pedophilia, you stupid fuck, while I am gay, I have never molested a child, or had sex with a minor, your comments are your mindset are not only insulting, they show your stupid ass cult brainwashing of your christian cult. Were you born such a stupid christian dumbfuck, or did that take years of practice and you just turned out that way, asshole? Being born gay shows that God creates people gay, lesbian, just as God creates people straight, get a fucking clue idiot, take a course in basic human sexuality, you stupid religious retard.
