Ben Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 alright... where do i start... you say that EVERYONE should have their equal rights... EVERYONE does include... well, everyone... if you grant EVERYONE equal rights to marry, then joe blow can now legally marry his cow... and tom the petifile can marry his 10 year old girlfriend... the pologimists can marry their 20 wives and their donkey if they so desire... do you see my point yet??? equal rights means you have to allow ALL the dumb shit... i disagree it doesn't hurt my or your rights for the reasons i have posted... womens rights and gay rights are not the same b/c one allowed women to vote (which led to blacks and all americans to vote) this is a good thing... allowing gays to marry would lead to donkeys and cats getting married... that is a bad thing... do u think that joe blow should be able to marry his car if he wants to??? There is no line to draw if you allow gay marriage... point blank <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know! Can you imagine what will happen if we start letting black and whites marry too? oh wait a minute.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yeah real mature. Way to get your point across! Typical average American. Can't get your point across, so you'll just curse me. Same with you oldschooler. and No I didn't see your reply. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see you took out the redneck comment. Not very politically correct, was it? Of course "typical average American" in the context in which you use it would be ridiculed by you if someone said something like "typical average muslim, or typical average European, or typical average African-American". Then it would be stereotyping, wouldn't it? You hypocritical asshole. I don't know how old you are, but I was probably a mature adult before you were born. What part of "I don't want to debate it now" didn't you understand? You took that as an opportunity to slam me, and make it seem like you must be right, because I didn't want to debate it. Trust me, I got my point across. My point was, FUCK YOU !!! You could have said, ok, we'll debate it some other time, but you didn't. Talk about a lack of maturity. Trust me, I've debated these issues with people much more intelligent than you. People who actually have legitimate points to make. It was obvious to me that you were just another of those who spew inane talking points without any merit, and without any objectivity or any basis in reality. FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, A THOUSAND TIMES FUCK YOU !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I know! Can you imagine what will happen if we start letting black and whites marry too? oh wait a minute.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and that has to do w/ marrying animals and pologomy how... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 haha well just got back from voting.. HERE TO FOUR MORE YEARS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 and that has to do w/ marrying animals and pologomy how... ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was just following your logic. Not to long ago people were following your logic when it came to interacial marriage. There is also a difference between consenting adults and animals/objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I was just following your logic. Not to long ago people were following your logic when it came to interacial marriage. There is also a difference between consenting adults and animals/objects. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The definition of marriage was drawn thousands of years ago. If you let gays marry then basically all that would do is drive up the divorce rate. I think we as a society have become TO TOLERANT. I`m not a gay basher. But like it or not they`re NOT in the majority of society. I don`t approve of it and I think it is sick and wrong. To each his own though, keep it in the bedroom. Just like I wouldn`t want my kids to see a man and woman groping all over each other I REALLY wouldn`t want them to see 2 gays groping and kissing in public. Why can`t they be happy just living together and having a "civil union" ? Because they want to force their life style on every1 and be accpeted as equal. You say consenting adults should be allowed to marry ? Well shouldn`t that go for polygamy and bi-sexuals marrying 1 of each gender too ? If not why ? They have rights too ? Oh and 2 votes for Bush here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 great point about the civil union OS... i do support that b/c it would allow health insurance and stuff, and not shit all over our tradition of marriage... nor waste a whole bunch of tax money (tax credit for married folks) on supporting the pologimists and the increase in marriage if gays were allowed to be legal together... i do think that a "civil union" would be a very good compromise... but thats not what the gays want... well said, and thanks for stealing my idea... i couldn't think of the damn words for "civil union" so i was going to say something about "couples" same difference though... btw ben, i figured out what you meant after i reread through the post and saw your comic... i see your point, but i also see many problems that could/would arise if we allow ourselves to open up to gay marriage... i just don't like the idea, and never will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I`m for civil unions because they would cover STRAIGHT people (or "breeders" as my gay friend calls them) too. It makes complete and total sense. But wait that`s not equal as the majority and is to simple ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I`m for civil unions because they would cover STRAIGHT people (or "breeders" as my gay friend calls them) too. It makes complete and total sense. But wait that`s not equal as the majority and is to simple ! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the problems that are brought up w/ this is that exactly... as stupid as it sounds, if you open "civil unions" up to gays and lesbians, you also have to allow straight people to be in "civil unions" also... i guess it would take over the "common law" and i'm not sure the exact problems w/ this, but i'd love to hear them... just playing devils advocate a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 DANG! He loves them too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 TRAITOR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 THE ONLY CHOICE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On Bush & Kerry WASHINGTON, DCâ€â€Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On Bush & Kerry WASHINGTON, DCâ€â€Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bush seems to be doing well to me. Bush 182 Kerry 112 Am I missing something? Do they consider that close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Kerry ads are working! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 duh duh duh do click click dud duh duh do click click! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Read this like Edwards is talking: You know Johns pecker is only this big. I swear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Read this like Edwards is talking: You know Johns pecker is only this big. I swear! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Calm down, it is going to be a very long night. I am sure Kerry and company will come up with something to drag it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Calm down, it is going to be a very long night. I am sure Kerry and company will come up with something to drag it out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But but this is fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bush is leading Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think the govt should make all "unions" Civl Unions and leave the title of "Marriage" up to churches, if we want to make it religous. That way Civil Unions have the same rights as marriages. Btw, Looks like Bush is going to carry Ohio, aka the election. Oh Well, The apocalypse didnt happen in the past 4 years, maybe i'll be lucky in the next 4. Hopefully he decides to be a real republican this term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Btw, Looks like Bush is going to carry Ohio, aka the election. Oh Well, The apocalypse didnt happen in the past 4 years, maybe i'll be lucky in the next 4. Hopefully he decides to be a real republican this term. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he might free another BILLION people under dictators... god forbid... btw, wall street is jumping and dancing this morning... the economy will BOOM for a long time b/c the people love an incumbant president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiyall69 Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 I see you took out the redneck comment. Not very politically correct, was it? Of course "typical average American" in the context in which you use it would be ridiculed by you if someone said something like "typical average muslim, or typical average European, or typical average African-American". Then it would be stereotyping, wouldn't it? You hypocritical asshole. I don't know how old you are, but I was probably a mature adult before you were born. What part of "I don't want to debate it now" didn't you understand? You took that as an opportunity to slam me, and make it seem like you must be right, because I didn't want to debate it. Trust me, I got my point across. My point was, FUCK YOU !!! You could have said, ok, we'll debate it some other time, but you didn't. Talk about a lack of maturity. Trust me, I've debated these issues with people much more intelligent than you. People who actually have legitimate points to make. It was obvious to me that you were just another of those who spew inane talking points without any merit, and without any objectivity or any basis in reality. FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, A THOUSAND TIMES FUCK YOU !!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If that's what you really want to believe. I swear if I didn't know any better, you want to Fuck Me. This coming from a guy that hates gays. Got news for you, my ass is exit only. Peace. Just end this conservation. I was only playing devils advocate, yet all you can do is turn to cussing. That's real mature. Also, I wasn't slamming you. It was just a freaking joke. Just like you said your were joking with your comment. BTW, its your opinion that you have more intelligence. My opinion is, you have valid points and so did I. But yet you challenge mine. Real mature! You admitted that you don't know me, yet you keep calling me names, cussing. Real mature! hypocrit my ass. You don't know me! Ok now that I got that out of the way. Let bygones be bygones. Elections over. No more debate. We cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.