This is gonna be a long *** conversation ain't it?
"My statement implies no such thing at all. That is a leap your making that most rational people
would not make. I only make the distinction between something clearly obvious and in-concealable,
to something that no one will know unless I openly express it. This is a big difference and you are
choosing to act like it isn't."
I didn't ignore it. I said the line if reasoning is illogical and it still is. A person being able to hide their
sexuality has little to nothing to do with the discrimination against them. You two are still choosing
to ignore THAT. Think about it in the context of any other issue and the reasoning falls completely
apart. You know that to be true when I used my Jewish example.
"Point 2. Sexuality may not be a moral question to you, but it is to a very large and significant
portion of the United States. I agree, you cannot legislate morality, but indeed in some instances
we have ie prostitution laws."
Which is why I'm against those laws and the "war" on drugs as well.
"But again, race discrimination and *** discrimination have more differences than similarities in my
And again, the only difference there is is the fact *** can hide it. That doesn't discount their
discrimination and the logic is completely flawed.
"And on small government, who the hell says I want more legislation on this issue ?"
I meant conservatives in general. I should've explained that. My bad.
"Dude, I ain't never heard anybody say this was the issue??? Don't get this one."
"To make it so that if we have a moral objection, that the legal objections supercede the morals
ones, so that christian folks are now legally wrong to not accept *** in society"
You said it right there.
"Most christian churches I know out in Cali don't ban *** from attending service at all, but they still
feel that *** is wrong. So how is that rejection ? "
Again, anecdotal evidence isn't the norm.
"The definition of marriage is the union between one woman and one man, not 2 guys, 2 girls, 3
girls and a guy, a guy his cat and his dog, a woman and her mailbox. The definition of marriage is
very clear and has been so since the inception of civilized society on this earth !"
Once again, that isn't true. And I have multiple examples. Some marriages happened between
entire families and at times more than one woman to one man. The definition has always been
assumed. Not defined.
"If everyone on earth got aspired to be in a traditional marriage, you would see much more order
on this planet with more stable families and societies. No out of wedlock births, no kids without
That is the stupidest thing you've ever said. None of this can be proven and as a matter of fact is
disproven by what we're seeing today. Just because people marry "traditionally" doesn't mean they
won't still cheat on their wives, or just *** a bunch of women and not take care of their
"If everyone on earth turned *** tomorrow it wouldn't be enough test tube babies to support our
population and dismal birthrate that would ensue. It would be more chaos. *** male society is the
most fickle relationship wise due to how men are and *** mens views of monogamy."
LOL WHUT?? Who said they everyone to turn ***?? This example is so ridiculous I won't even
address it. I mean really?!
"*** men are many times less monogamous than straight women. This is a fact."
It varies from each individual.
"No mater what, you know it and I know it that the single most common definition of marriage on
this earth is one man, one woman, regardless of what other aberrations you can come up with. 2
men or 2 women marrying has never been considered as valid in society until like the last 30 years
or so in the history of this earth !"
Now you're just being an idiot. Are you gonna tell me David didn't have 2-3 wives? Solomon had
about 700. Abraham had three. Don't give me that bs that it was *always* defined as one man one
woman. That's absolutely FALSE and you know it.
"More *** ! The word marriage is a religious term loosely meaning a union of man and
woman before God. This is it's typical and historical origin."
No you're the one that's ***. Marriage was NEVER a religious term. People were getting
married before religion ever came into play. And again, you're ignoring that early Christianity and
Judaism had marriage between multiple partners. It's been defined as one man one women during
the common era after Christ.
"And *** marriage is not about rights at all ! This is what the *** left want you to believe. In Cali
we had a ballot measure that would give *** the exact same rights as a married couple but not
call it marriage and the *** still had a fit !"
Are you talking about Prop 8? Cause thats not what I heard it was. Also, it IS about rights and
privileges. You have yet to tell me how it isnt.
"So don't tell me this *** of it's about rights ! It is about acceptance by "normal society" and ***
trying to force it on us to period ! They want to equate *** marriage with hetero marriage and this
country ain't havin it."
You don't have to accept anything. *** are trying to remove the statute that they can't get married
and don't have the same rights as a married couple. That is all. They're not trying to force anyone
to be *** or be even like them. Take off the tin-foil hat.
"You can call it hogwash, but this is my main reason for wanting *** marriage called same ***
unions. I truly believe that typical marriage is a crucial ideal for society to live up to and that is a
critical building block of society and I don't wanna mess with it. You think it's no big deal and won't
disrupt ***, after all. Who cares if we tamper with something so crucial. The rights of *** people
outweigh the importance of building block of civilization."
I'm really close to calling you a *** at this point. *** getting married WON'T DO
ANYTHING. *** will just be able to get married! Are you telling me that *** getting married will
stop everyone else from getting married?? Your saying that people will go rioting in the streets??
What will happen?? Will the sky fall?? It wont effect anything at all you conspiracy theorist. And
again, this is the SAME line bigots used against blacks and secures used against women during
the civil tights and suffrage movements respectively.
"And you can say what you want and think King would be consistent and defend the rights of ***
to be married. I dont thinks so. I think he would defend them against discrimination, but not on the
The marriage issue = discrimination.