Shut up you chameleon lemonheaded coward terrorist pussy!
*This message brought to you by chet giving me a link to helicopter man
Being old makes one fundamentally different from being young, and yet we don’t have a different term for that marriage. There’s an assumption that in a heterosexual relationship, that the defining characteristic of that union is the love between the couple, and that this defining characteristic is universal no matter what other differences may exist between any given couples (age, race, disability, culture, religion, education).
And yet you seem to be insisting that the defining characteristic of a marriage is gender, not love and commitment. Which is bullshit, and is a thin smokescreen to cover your homophobia.
Edit: Getting back to the OP - please, vote Republican. Allow me to speak for the rest of the DNC when I say “Don’t let the door to the voting booth hit you on the ass on the way out”.
So is your contention that the ~0.1 - 1% of people who are born intersex have no legal right to marry anyone?
He’s using the term “fundamental” to try to parse something that doesn’t parse. Semantics.
I suspect it is because his head is up his fundament…
I considered voting Republican when I was living in Indiana even though I am in fact far too liberal to be classified as a Democrat. I actually think it can make sense, given our fucked up voting system, to switch sides. In Indiana, as a democrat, I had essentially no way to impact the actual vote (because we’d elect a Republican win no matter what). Voting as a Republican, at the very least, I had a chance to vote for a more moderate Republican in the primary.
Personally I think the government should call all marriages civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches create marriages and recognize or not recognize them as they see fit. The government shouldn’t be in the business of defining religious pacts.
Being old doesn’t make you grow ovaries or testicles, whichever way the case may be.
Think what you will. With your state of mind, the only way I can convince you of anything is if you dunked me in water to see if I float to the top or sink.
I agree. And being a Republican doesn’t prevent me from voting for the Democratic contender during the final election.
He’s probably just really ignorant, but we shouldn’t ignore the possibility that he’s genuinely, clinically retarded.
I wish that being an idiot would stop you from voting at all. Honestly, you have the right to vote, but just like a half-retarded alcoholic technically has the right to own a firearm, this is one of those rights that common sense requires you decline to excercise. But thanks for letting us know that you are a homophobe in addition to being a guy who can articulate less about science than a youth pastor with a concussion.
Since you love theories so much, here’s my theory. You’re gay and you hate yourself. You hate yourself because you think everyone else does, and you are just saying this because you think that we are trying to catch you in your boycrazy ways. Well Capt. Bank Shot, you have just deflected the suspicion back at yourself. Don’t worry though, you’re firing blanks because nobody here cares enough about gay people to discriminate against them except for you. Here’s a tip if you want to continue to try and pass for a heterosexual; real heterosexuals are too busy to care whether or not you are gay.* We have to make mortgage payments, fix our cars, pretend to be interested in someone else’s day, apologize for forgetting peoples’ birthdays, and level up our characters’ secondary skills. We have no time to write to our congressman, let alone run for the office ourselves, just because there’s two more dudes that I don’t have to worry about hitting on my girlfriend.
*Unless you are famous, and then only in a, “Hey, did you hear who turned out to be gay?” sort of way.
gasp How did you find out my deepest, darkest secret? What kind of shoes do you wear?
They’re Nike Larry Craigs.
Flowers has a wide stance that lesser men envy.
If only he spoke with a Spanish accent and drank Dos Equis (when he drinks beer).
Yes, but only you, your fellow homophobes, and various groups of religious zealots believe that having 2 of each is required to make a marriage. Just stating that “there must be only two!” doesn’t actually constitute a rationale, because you can’t explain why there must be only two other than to wave your hands and say “uhhh…just because!”
At least the zealots can say “the bible says so” - you don’t even seem to have that to fall back on to justify your prejudice, which must make for tough sledding, philosophically speaking.
And, honestly, I don’t even know why I bother posting further - once Flowers has made his post, we should just auto-lock the thread. There’s never anything else to say.
What makes you think the Bible is the arbiter of marriage?
Its only Socratic irony when you have a point to make.
I… I don’t think he meant to be ironic.
And to a point, he has one… After all, the institution of marriage shows up in several religions, not just Christianity.
See, this is the kinda stupid shit that makes people bang their heads on their keyboards when trying to talk to you.
Note that my point was that “religious zealots can fall back on the bible to back up their arguments, because they believe it’s the source of ultimate truth, while you don’t have that luxury”.
So, I have no clue how you got “bigdruid thinks the Bible is the arbiter of marriage” out of my post.
Let me rephrase.
Why do you feel religious zealots being able to fall back on the Bible to be acceptable/superior to what I believe? Why is their “ultimate truth” more acceptable/understandable to you than what I believe?