Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Same sex marriage vs interracial marriage
willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Mon 05/20/13 04:30 PM
I tried doing a homosexer marriage vs bestiality marriage thread. I guess, homosexer buttsex is as perverted as is allowed. One day, progressives will be able to openly love they animals. Just a matter of time.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Mon 05/20/13 05:55 PM
I tried doing a homosexer marriage vs bestiality marriage thread. I guess, homosexer buttsex is as perverted as is allowed. One day, progressives will be able to openly love they animals. Just a matter of time. Maybe their right to marry animals will come.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Mon 05/20/13 06:45 PM
What other perversions could the Progressives come up with? Siblings marrying? Mon/Son, Mom/Daughter? Daddy/Son or maybe even Daddy/ Daughter? I could see them accepting all those behaviors as normal and having rights to do so. Lookin' like incest and goat love won't be fer jest them thar Hillbillies any longer.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/20/13 06:50 PM
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Mon 05/20/13 10:45 PM
I tried doing a homosexer marriage vs bestiality marriage thread. I guess, homosexer buttsex is as perverted as is allowed. One day, progressives will be able to openly love they animals. Just a matter of time. Except its not the progressives or liberals who keep bringing up bestiality. Apparently bestiality is what's important to conservatives.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Mon 05/20/13 10:46 PM
What other perversions could the Progressives come up with? Siblings marrying? Mon/Son, Mom/Daughter? Daddy/Son or maybe even Daddy/ Daughter? I could see them accepting all those behaviors as normal and having rights to do so. Lookin' like incest and goat love won't be fer jest them thar Hillbillies any longer. It's also not them bringing up incest constantly. That seems to be another conservative thing.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/20/13 11:17 PM
its logical to include incestuous relationships when we change the definition of marriage to two consenting adults people with the same anatomy should be eligible and so should people with the same parents/family members ,.. so long as they are 'adult' and 'consenting' why do some people find such an offense at the two things being mentioned together?

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Tue 05/21/13 12:20 AM
where is the Beef? Why make problems where there aren't any?

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 05/21/13 02:44 AM Edited by adj4u on Tue 05/21/13 03:02 AM
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 05/21/13 02:53 AM
its logical to include incestuous relationships when we change the definition of marriage to two consenting adults people with the same anatomy should be eligible and so should people with the same parents/family members ,.. so long as they are 'adult' and 'consenting' why do some people find such an offense at the two things being mentioned together? closely genetically connected couple when they have offspring create offspring on a high probability of being genetically defective. thus causing a creating a hardship for their offspring to have a normal life this is not an issue for same sex couples

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Tue 05/21/13 03:08 AM
i would be pleased if someone could find a reason that was constitutionally legit as i dont like the idea but i do not have the right to impose my likes or dislikes on others by passing laws according to them but no one has

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 05/21/13 06:22 AM
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition I still have not seen proof that objection to homosexual activity is 'religious' only,,,, look up the risks of msm, look up the anatomy of the behind, look up the history of mental illness associated with the homosexual lifestyle before lgbt put the pressure on none of that is 'religious' in nature,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 05/21/13 06:24 AM
its logical to include incestuous relationships when we change the definition of marriage to two consenting adults people with the same anatomy should be eligible and so should people with the same parents/family members ,.. so long as they are 'adult' and 'consenting' why do some people find such an offense at the two things being mentioned together? closely genetically connected couple when they have offspring create offspring on a high probability of being genetically defective. thus causing a creating a hardship for their offspring to have a normal life this is not an issue for same sex couples yes, and as I am told when I bring up the risks of anal sex genetically connected couples arent hte only ones who have high probability (which is also debatable in reality) of having 'genetically defective' children but noone else is prevented from marrying because of it,,,,

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Tue 05/21/13 07:46 AM
i'm not talking about laws, i'm talking about core beliefs, what their life is based on...when someone believes something strong enough, it automatically becomes true in their mind, no matter what. thats why it's hard to argue with fanatics, they are right no matter what. same as some of these pro gayers, they cannot see how morally wrong they are... Is that why it's hard to discuss things with you? You're a fanatic against homosexuality. You seem completely obsessed with not wanting people to have anal sex. Now i'm a fanatic? or did you mean fantastic? No, I definitely meant fanatic. So you think butt sex is a good thing? If it's someone's preference, why would I care? I'm certainly not going to tell them to not have anal sex if that's what they want to do. SO, even tho what they do behind closed doors is their business, i think we both agree on that, and then adam and steve want to start talking about it... at what point do you slap the hell out of them?

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Tue 05/21/13 09:26 AM
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition I still have not seen proof that objection to homosexual activity is 'religious' only,,,, look up the risks of msm, look up the anatomy of the behind, look up the history of mental illness associated with the homosexual lifestyle before lgbt put the pressure on none of that is 'religious' in nature,,,, There are STD risks for straight couples as well. And straight people have anal sex. Straight people can have mental illnesses, too. Those aren't solely issues for homosexuals. Do you have a specific homosexual-only reason for them not being allowed to marry? One that does not affect straight couples?

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Tue 05/21/13 09:27 AM
i'm not talking about laws, i'm talking about core beliefs, what their life is based on...when someone believes something strong enough, it automatically becomes true in their mind, no matter what. thats why it's hard to argue with fanatics, they are right no matter what. same as some of these pro gayers, they cannot see how morally wrong they are... Is that why it's hard to discuss things with you? You're a fanatic against homosexuality. You seem completely obsessed with not wanting people to have anal sex. Now i'm a fanatic? or did you mean fantastic? No, I definitely meant fanatic. So you think butt sex is a good thing? If it's someone's preference, why would I care? I'm certainly not going to tell them to not have anal sex if that's what they want to do. SO, even tho what they do behind closed doors is their business, i think we both agree on that, and then adam and steve want to start talking about it... at what point do you slap the hell out of them? Straight people talk about their sexuality all the time. This certainly isn't something only gay people do.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Tue 05/21/13 02:44 PM
i'm not talking about laws, i'm talking about core beliefs, what their life is based on...when someone believes something strong enough, it automatically becomes true in their mind, no matter what. thats why it's hard to argue with fanatics, they are right no matter what. same as some of these pro gayers, they cannot see how morally wrong they are... Is that why it's hard to discuss things with you? You're a fanatic against homosexuality. You seem completely obsessed with not wanting people to have anal sex. Now i'm a fanatic? or did you mean fantastic? No, I definitely meant fanatic. So you think butt sex is a good thing? If it's someone's preference, why would I care? I'm certainly not going to tell them to not have anal sex if that's what they want to do. SO, even tho what they do behind closed doors is their business, i think we both agree on that, and then adam and steve want to start talking about it... at what point do you slap the hell out of them? Straight people talk about their sexuality all the time. This certainly isn't something only gay people do. no, i don't listen to anyone talking about butt sex... and i certainly won't listen to gays talking about it...

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 05/21/13 02:51 PM
no, i don't listen to anyone talking about butt sex... and i certainly won't listen to gays talking about it... Even if they talk about sucking choco-pops after packin' da' fudge?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 05/21/13 06:33 PM Edited by msharmony on Tue 05/21/13 06:35 PM
good grief come into the 21st century.normal cannot be defined.if 2 people of same sex fall in love,how is that wrong?love doesn't know colour or sexes.it just is.you sound like the old Victorian tempest mob from uk.no offence but at the end of the day live and let live,. we all have views,we all are entitled to live.look around how many hetro relationships are full of vitriol, beatings, murder, divorce, abuse.loads.dont sweep it under the carpet.we are all human and the basic human need is to be loved and wanted.i hate those who bring religion into arguments.religion has nothing to do with who you love.at the end of the day lets be real-jesus wore a long dress and hung around with only guys,.what does that say? So who defines the definitions of right and wrong? i keep hearing "it's not wrong", but what makes it right? because you say it's right? you don't agree with religion, so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong? this love conquers all - even your morality? there's not a point when you ask "is this right?" if people cannot keep self control, then things like this happen... there are no rules of permission only rules of prohibition you don't need permission to do right even the bill of rights is a list of prohibitions :you shall not infringe: you mentioned religion """"""""so anyone that uses religion as a basis is automatically wrong?"""""""""" yes in the U.S. the first amendment prohibits laws based on religion wrong,, my religion says murder is wrong and guess what, so does mans laws so just because I can point to a moral thats in the bible, doesnt mean that Im wrong,, or anyone else murder is an infringement on others thus it is not a solely religious reason for being against the law i still have not seen a legitimate non-religion argument to ban same sex marriage and it is still a law of prohibition I still have not seen proof that objection to homosexual activity is 'religious' only,,,, look up the risks of msm, look up the anatomy of the behind, look up the history of mental illness associated with the homosexual lifestyle before lgbt put the pressure on none of that is 'religious' in nature,,,, There are STD risks for straight couples as well. And straight people have anal sex. Straight people can have mental illnesses, too. Those aren't solely issues for homosexuals. Do you have a specific homosexual-only reason for them not being allowed to marry? One that does not affect straight couples? no, do you have a specific incest only reason for consentual siblings or parent/child marriages to not be permitted?

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48948	Tue 05/21/13 08:04 PM
closely genetically connected couple when they have offspring create offspring on a high probability of being genetically defective. thus causing a creating a hardship for their offspring to have a normal life this is not an issue for same sex couples What if such a genetically-related couple decide not to procreate? What then would be the reason for denying them the ability to get married?