Does anyone find this sick?

[Archer 007]

http://www.onemanonewoman.com/

I wanted to vomit when I read this. Do you think this sort of tripe will get passed?

 

[CivCube]

Hopefully not. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets passed, sadly.

 

[Mikoyan]

That is just wrong.

 

[superslug]

Getting a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress is hard enough, but 3/4 of state legislatures? The supporters of this bill have little more chance than one in the hell I hope they burn in for proposing this pile of crap.

Everyone knows it should be one man, five women...

 

[Shadylookin]

i don't really care one way or the other on the issue, if a gay couple want to get married why not it has lost any real religious meaning it has. If atheist guy and girl want to get married the law doesn't stop it because it goes against a religious institution why should it matter if 2 guys want to get married.

The thing i find truely sad is that many religious men haven't opened their eyes and realized for every gay couple it's 2 less guys you have to compete with over women

 

[andvruss]

Sick? Ha! Marriage is the union between a man and woman, nothing else. You can't redefine marriage. This proves how low the morals of today's scoieyt have sunk.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by andvruss
Sick? Ha! Marriage is the union between a man and woman, nothing else. You can't redefine marriage. This proves how low the morals of today's scoieyt have sunk.

Why shouldn't two members of the same sex be allowed to marry? How is such a concept immoral? How is marriage an institution that cannot be redefined?

 

[andvruss]

Originally posted by superslug

Why shouldn't two members of the same sex be allowed to marry? How is such a concept immoral? How is marriage an institution that cannot be redefined?

They can be married. I can't stop that. But they shouldn't change the defination of maraige. It has already gone too far up here in Canada.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its not chamging the definition of marriage, its changing the definition of WHO can get married. Why does that threaten you.

 

[superslug]

@andvruss:
You're right, the definiton of marriage shouldn't be changed. Perhaps we should revoke the last evolution of the definition and go back to parentally arranged marriages where the prospective spouses have no say in the selection choice of mates.

 

[Comraddict]

homo marriage is joke. they can't have biological kids. thru history i never heard of homo marriage until today! of course women didn't have rights etc before, but it is not same thing! purpose of marriage is love and making kids, raising family, making better future for kids.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It's sickos like YOU that make me mad.

Do you want to destroy the MORAL FABRIC that our society DEPENDS on?

Marriage has been done the SAME, BEAUTIFUL and ORIGINAL way for HUNDREDS of years, and I see NO reason why disgusting lie-berals should take away our important TRADITIONS.

PS - my girlfriend having reached the age of twelve, her parents have finally given me her hand. Her parents are giving forty acres of corn, thirty rolls of silk, and three milk-cows as a dowry [you can tell I'm a good negotiator!]. I will finally meet my soon-to-be wife next Thursday; the wedding and ritual kidnapping is planned for Saturday.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Nice of you to marry an old maid.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by Comraddict
homo marriage is joke. they can't have biological kids.

Irrelevant. The purpose of marriage is a union between two individuals who love each other and want to formally share a life until death or divorce do them part.

Originally posted by Comraddict
purpose of marriage is love and making kids, raising family, making better future for kids.

Making procreation a purpose of marriage is the right of only married couples, not you or anyone else. Even then, it's done on a case by case basis.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Comraddict
homo marriage is joke. they can't have biological kids.

In another 20 or so years science will enable them to have kids

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

In case you didn't realize, that was a little thing I like to call "satire"

until death or divorce do them part.

They should revise the ceremony to include the divorce part it just sounds so.... y'know.... "till death or divorce do us part!"

@ COMRADDICT, ANDVRUSS and other wackos:

If the purpose of marriage is raising kids, then should sterile or impotent folks be allowed to marry? What about if a couple states right out that they WON'T have children? Should they still be allowed to marry? What if I meet the girl of my dreams - at age 73? Should I still be allowed to marry?

Your argument is grade A manure.

 

[superslug]

20 years or so? The lesbians can do it now thanks to sperm banks. (This is of course assuming Comraddict uses the term homosexual to include lesbians...)

 

[The Yankee]

I don't think this will go very far.

 

[superslug]

I recognized the satire, Pontiuth. If you felt I was targetting you, I was not.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
In case you didn't realize, that was a little thing I like to call "satire"

Speaking of grade A manure, youd look awfully silly taking three milk cows out for walkies every morning and evening.