No. of Recommendations: 0
A man and woman may marry.

A man and man, or woman and woman may marry.

Love should not be regulated when it's consenting adults, I agree.

So, if a Bisexual American loves a man and a woman, and they love him or her equally in return, why cannot he marry both a man and a woman?

If you are against that, you are bible thumping anti-bisexual Liberals, standing in the way of a Bisexual American to be who he needs to be.

But I doubt you'll take up the cause.

You only do what's fashionable on your side for the moment.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You're in full troll mode now, I see.

It's 1:33. Why don't you take a break?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Once again, Felix-I-can't-Ignore-Jedi makes it about ME.

I'm merely using the same pro-gay-marriage arguments the Left made (which I agree with).

And you are an Anti-Bisexual-Bible-Thumping bigot.

Confront the topic, not the poster for once.

Why should you and your government be allowed to tell a Bisexual American, who prefers both sexes and needs that to be happy, that he can't marry a man and a woman?

For instance, if I were Bisexual (even though I'm an inferior immigrant-American to you), let's say in addition to my Wife, I wanted to marry a man. I'd probably pick Dovbaer because he's the sensitive, caring, alan alda type. Why should the government or hateful conservatives prevent me from loving who and how I want to love in a consenting way?

C'mon Felix-can't-ignore-Jedi-ever-and -can't-respond-on-topic, tell us?

Thanks for being concerned about the late hours. Sorry, it doesn't matter to me. The unemployment funds spend quite well regardless of how sleepy I may feel. (Thanks obama ;)

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Point of order...if I were Bi I'd try to court Dov, but also Bufftrainer.

Where Dov is a nice guy, Buff is rugged, tough, etc. It'd be a conquest to me if I could gain the affections of a well educated man like that.

Ok, anyway, if you are Anti-Bisexual Felix, that's your right. I won't be seeing you at the next Dobson-Falwell summit though.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, if a Bisexual American loves a man and a woman, and they love him or her equally in return, why cannot he marry both a man and a woman?



Go for it. I have no problem. I don't think you're my type though Jedi.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Point of order...if I were Bi I'd try to court Dov, but also Bufftrainer.

I am totally hurt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Good point!

But don’t stop there.

I own homes in two states. Why am I only allowed to vote once?

Seems discriminatory.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
All silliness aside, gay "marriage" is the cocktail du jour. But when marriage is based upon "love", how do you exclude others who love differently.

They were probably also "born that way".

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hello Bill Z....

Don't be hurt.

You're a nice guy.

I like you as a friend.

(I've heard that speech 100 times in my life so it's fun to give that speech for a change)

JediG

PS: Liberals are insensitive to Bisexuals. Why do they fight for gay marriage, but not bi marriage? Answer: It's all about what's en vouge on any given day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Alchook...

You chose to own two homes knowing full well you can vote only once (though I can tell you with 100% certanity that illegal aliens vote, as I've ASSISTED them in doing so and will do again in the future. So if you wanna vote, go ahead)

Your home ownership is a choice.

But contrary to what Bi-Hating-Liberal-Christians think, one's sexuality is what one is born with. Love should not be subject to the whims of a tyrannical Liberal majority that claims to be for equality, yet Liberals practice "1st amongst equals" every single minute of their fake lives.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But contrary to what Bi-Hating-Liberal-Christians think, one's sexuality is what one is born with. Love should not be subject to the whims of a tyrannical Liberal majority that claims to be for equality, yet Liberals practice "1st amongst equals" every single minute of their fake lives.

Ahhh, now I see.

Still, what about Christians? Christians love everyone. It’s an essential component of Christianity. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

So Christians should be married to everyone. Anything less is religious discrimination of the worst kind.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

A man and woman may marry.

A man and man, or woman and woman may marry.

Love should not be regulated when it's consenting adults, I agree.

So, if a Bisexual American loves a man and a woman, and they love him or her equally in return, why cannot he marry both a man and a woman?

If you are against that, you are bible thumping anti-bisexual Liberals, standing in the way of a Bisexual American to be who he needs to be.

But I doubt you'll take up the cause.

You only do what's fashionable on your side for the moment.


Oh, please......

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/red-brand...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. They are not anti-bisexual.

They just know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is. They also know that 3 > 2 and the complications it will lead to.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. They are not anti-bisexual.
----
They just know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is. They also know that 3 > 2 and the complications it will lead to.


I actually think three (mixed) is less problematic than two same sex


at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
hey just know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is. They also know that 3 > 2 and the complications it will lead to.

Yes. And gay marriage is so uncomplicated and such social experimentation always ends well.

Next?

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes. And gay marriage is so uncomplicated and such social experimentation always ends well.

Next?


I know tons of gay couples... many of whom have been together for decades... raised children, even... most of whom have turned out very well.... and OMG! all of the kids are straight!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????

The minister.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...if a Bisexual American loves a man and a woman, and they love him or her equally in return, why cannot he marry both a man and a woman?

Good question. Why not?

There's no good reason the state should prohibit polygamy.

There are, however, good reasons to limit the government benefits associated with marriage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????

The minister



ok then
with that settled, I'm fine with same-sex marriage
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????

The minister


ok then
with that settled, I'm fine with same-sex marriage


W-w-wait a minute. Let's sit down and talk about this one first.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Yes. And gay marriage is so uncomplicated"

Gay marriage is uncomplicated. It can use existing marriage laws.

Marriage between multiple people is very complicated. Inheritance laws and divorce laws would all have to be re-written. Medical decision making laws, child guardianship laws will all have to be re-written.

"and such social experimentation always ends well."

Yeah. That civil rights social experimentation removing the prohibitions on interracial marriage probably didn't turn out to well for you. Luckily it did for most people though.

Besides, gay people have been co-habitating in everything but legal marriage for years. Finally giving them the same rights as everyone else isn't really much of a stretch as far as experimentation is concerned.

"Next?"

We are right back where we started. You and Jedi don't know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is and that 3 > 2 and the complications it will lead to.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So now it's about QUANTITY of people 'leading to confusion'? So what? Why should societal 'confusion' stand in the way of love and consenting relationships?

Hmmmm, anti-Bi-Liberals have excuses. They went to the Falwell school.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Good.

Now why not a decade from now say "I know Bisexual married people and their kids are great, and the 3rd parent adds supervision, income, all sorts of great stuff"?

Why not fight for Bisexuals? Why just gays?

Equality for all.

Right now, we are all discriminatory. We allowe hetero's and homosexuals to marry. Cause we "agree" with their needs or desires.

Why are we the gatekeepers? Why not protest for Bisexuals to marry?

(I'm impressed some Libs took a stab at this one.)

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Depending on the church, it would probably be misleading for the priest to wear the white dress, especially if he keeps winking at the altar boy.

JEdiG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are, however, good reasons to limit the government benefits associated with marriage.
***

Why?

If a Bisexual American Human Being marries a man and a woman...why shouldn't the three of them get the government benefits? Why should We the People and our elected government give benefits to one sexual orientation, and not another?

I agree, tons of confusion maybe caused. But what is our priority? Civil rights for all, or eliminating confusion or problems?

I side with the civil rights.

It seems Liberals don't in this case.

Firsts amongst equals

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Marvelous arguments "for" gay marriage.

Why oh why do the same people discriminate against Bisexuals?

BisexualPhobia needs to be discusssed and dealt with.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
yes. And gay marriage is so uncomplicated

Gay marriage is uncomplicated. It can use existing marriage laws.

Oh please. I guess that is why there is litigation in most states and federally regarding this issue.

But since "uncomplicated" is the test, natural marriage is least complicated, so it rules.

Yeah. That civil rights social experimentation removing the prohibitions on interracial marriage probably didn't turn out to well for you. Luckily it did for most people though.

Has nothing to do with current topic.

Besides, gay people have been co-habitating in everything but legal marriage for years.

And that proves to you such relationships are good for children. Sorry, but I require just a tad more rigor.

Finally giving them the same rights as everyone else isn't really much of a stretch as far as experimentation is concerned.

You completely miss the point. Children. Where is the science regarding children with 2 dads or moms? There is no credible on-point research. There is plenty that shows kids do best with dad and mom. I doubt that matters to you, however.

We are right back where we started. You and Jedi don't know what a slippery slope logical fallacy is and that 3 > 2 and the complications it will lead to.

We reach the initial conclusion. You do not favor true marriage rights. You just like to discriminate against others who love differently.

Your support for gay marriage thus comes across as unprincipled.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are, however, good reasons to limit the government benefits associated with marriage.
***
Why?


First, I should say I don't think there should be any government benefits linked to marriage per se.

To answer your question though, a reason to limit such benefits is necessary to discourage fraudulent marriage for the purpose of acquiring benefits. Can that happen in monogamous marriage? Sure, but the consequences are limited. Maybe there's another solution to that problem. Haven't given it a great deal of thought.

But generally speaking, and again, how many wives or husbands someone has, and whether those relationships are hetero- or homosexual, really isn't anyone's business. Especially not the state's. If churches want to impose religious restrictions on sanctioning such marriages, that's their prerogative.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ok then
with that settled, I'm fine with same-sex marriage

W-w-wait a minute. Let's sit down and talk about this one first.



what's to talk about ... the best argument i could find against same-sex marriage was if two guys marry , there's no white dress.


sank says the minister will wear one ... so no problem




.....o ...unless you want to minister such weddings but don't want to wear the white dress ....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS: Liberals are insensitive to Bisexuals. Why do they fight for gay marriage, but not bi marriage?


Who exactly has stated they are against bi-sexuals marrying?

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Marriage between multiple people is very complicated. Inheritance laws and divorce laws would all have to be re-written. Medical decision making laws, child guardianship laws will all have to be re-written.


COULD be a good thing if we re thought what the law should say about marriage at all
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who exactly has stated they are against bi-sexuals marrying?

Charlie


Nobody.

But hey! That never stopped a good jedi-rant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????



The drag queen at the bar.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
at the wedding of two males, who wears the white dress????



The drag queen at the bar.



that's even better than sano's answer .... now i REALLY see no objection
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Or, as Harvey Fierstein said, "In all my born days, I never met a real bisexual. I'd like to see a bisexual who lived with his boyfriend and then saw his girlfriend on the sly."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<I know tons of gay couples... many of whom have been together for decades... raised children, even... most of whom have turned out very well.... and OMG! all of the kids are straight!>>>

Sure you do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<Why are we the gatekeepers? Why not protest for Bisexuals to marry?>>>

I love my cat. Any reason for us not to marry?

(She will meoow when asked the right question.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure you do.

I actually do.

But I can see by your answer- that you do not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I love my cat. Any reason for us not to marry?

What is it with you conservatives and your obsession with having sex with animals?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<But I can see by your answer- that you do not.>>>

No, I do not. And I'm not lying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, I do not. And I'm not lying.

Neither am I, my cat loving friend.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<<<I love my cat. Any reason for us not to marry?>>>>

<<<What is it with you conservatives and your obsession with having sex with animals?>>>

What is it about you Lib/Dim Clowns and your obsession with sex?

Question: Who introduced sex into the exchange?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I love my cat. Any reason for us not to marry?

What is it with you conservatives and your obsession with having sex with animals?



they haven't been able to maintain a relationship
with a human??


NTTAWWT !!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Question: Who introduced sex into the exchange?

You did, with talking about marrying your cat.

Or is this some sort of platonic marriage you are yearning for?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Good question. Why not?

There's no good reason the state should prohibit polygamy.


The little I've read about polygamy tolerant societies suggests it is an often dismal situation that is usually unfortunate for the women.

The primary problem I see in the USA has to do with property rights and endless litigation. When a spouse dies the estate issues are simple; the surviving spouse inherits. Adding a 3rd party to the equation is a HUGE can o' worms.

I'd imagine divorce and estate attorneys would love the work.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<<<Question: Who introduced sex into the exchange?>>>>

<<<<You did, with talking about marrying your cat.

Or is this some sort of platonic marriage you are yearning for?>>>>

I just want my cat to be able to visit me if I am hospitalized, share in my medicare and SS benifits, and to inherit if I die.

Sex? EEEEUUUU.

I doubt you are a pervert, but why would you immediately think sex?

EEEEUUUU!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Because a lot of you guys are always talking about marrying animals.

After awhile, it just starts to sound very, very odd.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Incidentally, I would bet my cat is more faithfull than most of those you know; regardless of sexual orientation.

(unfortunately).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<Because a lot of you guys are always talking about marrying animals.

After awhile, it just starts to sound very, very odd.>>>

Depends on your viewpoint and individual urges.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Incidentally, I would bet my cat is more faithfull than most of those you know; regardless of sexual orientation.

(unfortunately).


There's no need to defend your cat. Your cat is an innocent bystander in this discussion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What an utterly stupid thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<There's no need to defend your cat. Your cat is an innocent bystander in this discussion.>>>

And Spayed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Oh please. I guess that is why there is litigation in most states and federally regarding this issue."

Stop the dishonesty. None of the litigation you mention is over the complications of gay marriage, it is over the legality of it.

"Has nothing to do with current topic."

You mentioned social experimentation regarding marriage. Now when it is pointed out that gay marraige is exactly like interracial marriage was at the time you now want to pretend social experimentation is off topic?

Yeah that is credible.

"And that proves to you such relationships are good for children."

We don't require two teenagers to prove that their impending marriage is good for the baby that is due in a couple of months. Why homosexuals?

"There is no credible on-point research. There is plenty that shows kids do best with dad and mom. I doubt that matters to you, however."

Why do you want to outlaw single people having children? What does that have to do with gay marriage?

"We reach the initial conclusion."

Yes we have. The sad part of this is you have had all of your points answered and you still constantly pretend you haven't. The best part of this is that in 30 years, your words will still be here for all to see. 30 after the bigots who opposed interracial marriage were able to slink off and pretend they never said and did the things they did.

Good luck with that Mr. Bunker.

"You do not favor true marriage rights. You just like to discriminate against others who love differently. Your support for gay marriage thus comes across as unprincipled."

Wrong (as usual). I don't mind it if we as a country let multiple people marry (as long as they are of age concenting adults). I really don't. I do recognize the complications of bringing that about however since it would require tens of thousands of changes to existing state and federal laws.

All gay marriage reuires is that recognizing a spouse could be the same sex.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I love my cat. Any reason for us not to marry?

of course not. But do not expect to get support from gay "marriage" bigots.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
of course not. But do not expect to get support from gay "marriage" bigots.

VQ


And another conservative sees nothing wrong with marrying cats.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Stop the dishonesty. None of the litigation you mention is over the complications of gay marriage, it is over the legality of it.

Giggle.

The fact that gay "marriage" is illegal is not a complication to you is interesting. I guess you find cheating on your taxes, bigamy, and armed robbery similarly uncomplicated.

You mentioned social experimentation regarding marriage. Now when it is pointed out that gay marraige is exactly like interracial marriage was at the time you now want to pretend social experimentatiyon is off topic?

Uh, no. Race is not part of the discussion and you know it.

We don't require two teenagers to prove that their impending marriage is good for the baby that is due in a couple of months. Why homosexuals?

First, gay guys do not have babies. Second, no one asked for proof. Having said that, there is plenty of data supporting that children do best with mom and dad, and strawmen do not change that.


There is no credible on-point research. There is plenty that shows kids do best with dad and mom. I doubt that matters to you, however.

Why do you want to outlaw single people having children? What does that have to do with gay marriage?

Last I checked, single people are not married. But you brought that into the discussion, for no apparent reason.

The sad part of this is you have had all of your points answered and you still constantly pretend you haven't.

You seem to exist in some bizarre alternate universe. You certainly have not countered anything I have pointed out, not here, not anywhere. And that there is no credible research on the effect of gay marriage on children is not seriously in dispute. Accordingly, we are not having much of of a discussion.

The best part of this is that in 30 years, your words will still be here for all to see. 30 after the bigots who opposed interracial marriage were able to slink off and pretend they never said and did the things they did.

I love that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Yes you have no facts to answer my statements. What does that make you? An ideologue? I am being charitable.


You do not favor true marriage rights. You just like to discriminate against others who love differently. Your support for gay marriage thus comes across as unprincipled.

Wrong (as usual). I don't mind it if we as a country let multiple people marry

Then why are you pretending to argue it? Sheesh.

..(as long as they are of age concenting[sic] adults).

On what basis? People who love people younger than 18 believe they were born that way. Just because they love differently than you, does that allow you to deny them civil rights?

I really don't. I do recognize the complications of bringing that about however since it would require tens of thousands of changes to existing state and federal laws.

Right. And it is ok to discriminate against people if paperwork makes it inconvenient.

All gay marriage reuires is that recognizing a spouse could be the same sex.

Again, bigotry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And another conservative sees nothing wrong with marrying cats.
_________________________

???

Trying to figure out the rules here. I heard it was all about love.

Now we are going to start putting qualifiers on it?

Seems like someone is moving the goalposts here. I agree it is absurd, but so is the idea that marriage was recognized by government because two folks loved each other. This seems a fairly straightforward extension. No reason it has to be two people.

It is like Fathers marrying sons, it does not have to be about sex, it is love that makes a marriage, right? Is that not the argument that was made?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And another conservative sees nothing wrong with marrying cats./i>

I am amused that you wish to discriminate against people whose relationships you disagree with.

We either have marriage equality, or we have different flavors of bigotry and discrimination. I see the side you line up with, and it saddens me but does not surprise me.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And another conservative sees nothing wrong with marrying cats./i>

I am amused that you wish to discriminate against people whose relationships you disagree with.

We either have marriage equality, or we have different flavors of bigotry and discrimination. I see the side you line up with, and it saddens me but does not surprise me.

VQ


Perhaps you can't grasp the idea of rights that adhere to us by virtue of us being human- a state of being not shared by animals.

Contracts are made between responsible adults. The free assent of a cat is not possible. Nor is the free assent of a child possible in the matter of a binding contract. That's why marriage between adults and children or animals is prohibited in modern western culture.

And why your raising the issue is simply silly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Though I do admit that many of you on the right like to talk about marrying animals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<And another conservative sees nothing wrong with marrying cats./i>>>>>

<<<<<I am amused that you wish to discriminate against people whose relationships you disagree with.

We either have marriage equality, or we have different flavors of bigotry and discrimination. I see the side you line up with, and it saddens me but does not surprise me.

VQ >>>>

The poster has a long history of various prejudices (as I have previously commented upon).

Somewhat surprising coming from a "man of the cloth" as another pointed out a year or so ago.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Somewhat surprising coming from a "man of the cloth" as another pointed out a year or so ago.
___________________________

IMO< this is kind of out of bounds.

Were he using his status to bludgeon other posters, it would be fair game. But I have never seen that.

I might abhor his politics, but attacking on this level is not good IMO. If you mean it, go for it, but I really hope it is heat of the moment and you and whoever, will think better of this line of attack.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<I might abhor his politics, but attacking on this level is not good IMO. If you mean it, go for it, but I really hope it is heat of the moment and you and whoever, will think better of this line of attack.>>>>

Don't know how you got the impression this was an "attack".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A WHOLE THREAD....

Dedicated to Liberals who want to discriminate against Bisexual Americans.

BiPhobia is not right in my opinion.

Who knew? Mr Dobson could recruit soldiers from the PA Left.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We can't be so paternalistic.

If there's divorce and estate problems, that's the problem of the survivors and lawyers.

What's more important?

Legal problems OR the civil right of Bisexuals?

Seems the Left has written off Bi's. Sorry BiAmerica, you're not "cool" enough for the Left.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"On what basis? People who love people younger than 18 believe they were born that way. Just because they love differently than you, does that allow you to deny them civil rights?"

Wow.

Now Bisexuals are compared to PEDOPHILES.

What does the right of an adult, to marry his boyfriend and girlfriend, also consenting adults, have to do with someone who wants to have sex with minors?

Liberal BiPhobia compares bisexuals to pedophilia. Sorry Bi-America, you aren't the flavor of the month to the Left like gays are.

Good ol Libs. Can never get beyond discrimination.

Why do American Liberals stand in the way of consenting love and marriage between 3 bisexual adults?

But then again, PA Liberals, time and time again voted for anti-gay-rights Presidents recently. So perhaps no surprise.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not right to equate Bill Z with sex and animals. He was merely trying to make an argument. True, his argument is flawed because it's not right compare Bisexuality of consenting adults to beastiality, but still, to invoke the 'man of the cloth' thing is rather cheap to bring someone's personal life into it.

Leftists bring my personal life into this all the time so I know what it feels like. But, it's also fun to rub it in their face that the personal life they keep spotlighting is more successful than they will be for 3 generations. LOL

JEdiG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Good ol Libs. Can never get beyond discrimination.



I see you're upset that I won't marry you. Sorry Jedi.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
HI Charlie...

Of course I'm upset. (Though good to see you aren't upset that Bisexual americans can't marry their partnerS of choice)

Marriage isn't in the cards, I accept that.

But I think a drink or a sandwich one day is something I'd be open to, and would look forward to. I enjoy some of your posts around here.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This thread just passed 69 posts.

Just saying
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Perhaps you can't grasp the idea of rights that adhere to us by virtue of us being human- a state of being not shared by animals.

This is simply a societal "norm" that you are describing. A method of discriminating is all that it is.

Contracts are made between responsible adults. The free assent of a cat is not possible.

Animals do not freely assent to becoming our property or being eaten by us. Your pretense that this is somehow a requirement is laughable.

Nor is the free assent of a child possible in the matter of a binding contract. That's why marriage between adults and children or animals is prohibited in modern western culture.

It is not prohibited. It simply requires that marriage be defined differently. People younger than 18 are responsible enough to drive cars and to marry, even in our society. Again, you are simply clothing your prejudice as a societal norm and saying that should be enough to keep people who love differently from exercising marriage rights.

That two men have no reason to want to marry and that sex between two men is dangerous and abhorrent has been such a norm until recently. Failure to acknowledge that those who love differently should still have the ability to marry is bigotry, plain and simple.

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Though I do admit that many of you on the right like to talk about marrying animals.

Your weak attempts to marginalize those who love differently and have different views than you do are telling.

Do you treat homosexuals similarly? Do you say you notice their keen interest in unnatural anal sex?

Curiously,

VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Perhaps you can't grasp the idea of rights that adhere to us by virtue of us being human- a state of being not shared by animals.

This is simply a societal "norm" that you are describing. A method of discriminating is all that it is.
_______________________________________

IT is funny to me, that folks want to say that the rules are too constraining and people who love should get to express that love however they want, then they want to back off when what they say is outed.

The poor pet owner, does not get the marriage he wants, although clearly he loves!

Where is the justice? It is all about love and there is no reason, there is no cost, there is no reason to object except hatred.

Why can't you libs live by the arguments you want others to live by? All of a sudden there are factors that matter.

Love is love, and denying the right to fulfillment to those poor cat ladies out there is just cruel. There really is no reason that you are toying with the emotion of pet owners, except your hatred and bigotry to thos kind enough to provide a home for pets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Liberals are anti-Bisexual hating bigots.

They don't care about equality, just being fashionable and right now, gay marriage was the latest brand-name of designer blue jeans.

If they truly valued equality, they'd come out in favor of Bisexual Civil Rights.

Rather, they tried comparing Bisexual American Human beings to pedophiles, and to those who engage in sex with puppy dogs.

Gay-Anericans don't come to the aid of Bisexual Marriage either.

Uncle Toms.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement