Heard it through the radio waves. hmm, kinda catchy.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

You haven't learned have you jackass.


why is it that everytime the topic of gay marriage comes up, somebody undoubtedly compares it to beastiality, incest, or pedophilia? looks like a few too many have been reading rick santorum's book on family "values" again. and i live in PA so i've earned the right to trash that bible-thumping douchebag all i want.

Aren't you being a little intollerant, jackass? that makes you a hypocrite, but then what else is new. If you are going to berate others for being intollerant, it's advisable that you demonstrate a higher lever of tolerance. Nevertheless,
why do people bring up beastiality et al up when homosexual unions are the topic. Simple, these people that take part in beastiality etc, are going to scream "freedom of expression", and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", just as the homos have been screaming for the past 40 years.

That's why. If you're too stupid not to realise that, that's your problem. Not mine.



interspecies sexual contact is odd and illegal, so is incest, and pedopiles seek physical realtionships with children - NOT other adults.

I got one acronym for ya - NAMBLA!

Tell me what you know of NAMBLA and what their objectives are.



can someone PLEASE tell me what ANY of these things have to do with two same sex ADULTS hooking up and getting freaky? i'll help you out: THEY DON'T. it is a lame attempt to lump gays in with TRUE sickos in order to demonize them.


Homosexuality is unnatural. As are all of the above, that's what they have in common. Regarding incest, what if 2 consenting adults agree to get married blah blah blah? How are you going to deny them the 'right' to that union.

Every arguement you and other homos of this country have brought up in defense of the homo unions will be used again by those engaging in incest, as well as beastiality etc etc. And all it's going to take is one 'freaky' judge to take your opposition to it, deem it unconstitutional and the next thing you know we have soddom and gommora on our hands.

That's whats known as a 'slippery slope' jackass!


and don't give me that lame-ass "IT'S NOT NATURAL... IT'S ABNORMAL... MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED AS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN... THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SEX IS FOR PROCREATION" bullshit. that's your religion talking.

No monkey boy, that is FACT! Take a group of homosexuals and slap them on an island, then take the same amount of hetrosexuals and put them on another island, give them food, water and access to medicine. Tell me which island is will have no life on it in 50 years, and which on will.

This has nothing to do with religion you stupid dumbass, this has everything to do with the natural order of things.

God, you're an idiot.



despite what some think, we're not ALL christians in the country so your pro-jesus reasoning for enacting legislation does not jibe. put the bible down for a sec and stop massaging jesus' feet, because i want a LEGAL reason for the justification of a gay marriage ban

First off, the majority of this country determines the direction of this country, this is not a minority ruled country. You dont like what the majority has to say, let me know cause I got a one way ticket to BFE with your name on it right here.

Secondly, you can try to spin this as a religious issue all you want, it's not going to help, the FACT of the matter is that homosexuality, like beastiality, incest, pedophillia, necrophillia etc etc are all UNNATURAL, and are COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to the ADVANCEMENT OF THE SPECIES. Stick yer head in the sand all you want chump, it won't change those FACTS.



i think the real reason is that so-called "understanding" conservative straight folks, while they may appear to be sympathetic on the surface, really have their stomachs turned at the thought of gays being seen as equal to them on that level.

That's your problem isn't it.....you think too much.
Have you ever noticed that when you sit down behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing?

Reading this crap you've flung up on the screen reminds me of a remark that Stanislaw J. Lec's made: "Every now and then you meet someone whose ignorance is encyclopedic."



how does two men/women getting hitched do ANYTHING to undermine/undo the bond you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? are you that insecure in your union? is your committment to your opposite sex spouse that paper thin that it can be undone by brad and evan tying the knot halfway across the country? explain this please, and give jesus a much needed breather.

If you can't figure that out, then you've got bigger problems than I thought.

In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

[Bumblebee]

With regardas to polygamy, could someone tell me what the big deal is with that either? As long as they are consenting adults, why not? I can see there being restrictions as far as health benefits and what not. Bt as far as a moral issue, if they choose to live that way, who is the government to say they cant. In biblical times, wasnt it common for men to have many wives?
You just answered the question why gay marriage should be banned.

Since you are already desensitized about gay marriage, it's on to who else can marry, and it will happened because as I often say, the people always abuse the laws.

It diminishes the value of the institution of marriage. I think it's Sweden where gay marriage is legal, (correct me if I'm wrong) and since then they have the numbers of traditional marriage by a man and a woman, way down.

[Bumblebee]

The Governator is NOT going to sign that. Kooky as California is, we have already voted against this ridiculousness.

We've got a lot of serious issues on the ballot tuesday. Unfortunatly, it already looks like we're going to loose on prop 73 which would require Parental Consent before a CHILD has an abortion, and also a loss on prop 75 which would have stopped the THEFT of union dues being used as political donations. Rats.
TL, I saw the polls last night, and couldn't believe it. I hope the polls are wrong and all those props pass. I'm pushing everyone I know, including in L.A., to get out and vote.
I wonder if those constant, day and night comercials did the trick?

[Oi_Ve]

Secondly, you can try to spin this as a religious issue all you want, it's not going to help, the FACT of the matter is that homosexuality, like beastiality, incest, pedophillia, necrophillia etc etc are all UNNATURAL, and are COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to the ADVANCEMENT OF THE SPECIES. Stick yer head in the sand all you want chump, it won't change those FACTS.


I think killing people would be counter productive to our survival, WAA. Not adding to the next generation is simply not helping in the species continuation, not being counter productive to it.
And, about the island metphor, you're right. But here's the thing, you had a completely homosexual population that has no means of travel, but thats not an accurate picture of the world.
Also, its good that you made sure they had unlimited reasources too, otherwise the heteros would die out. But we don't have unlimited reasources, either.
The real situation is an island with mostly heteros (99%, right?) and 1% homo, with only so many reaources (or, rather the ability to tap so many reasources). That 1% is not large enough to be detrimental to the populace, but it does act as a crude population control, which benefits future generations.
And while it is a slippery slope, WAA, and people can scream 'freedom of expression' all they want, the fact remains that they have no legal case. Period. Let them bitch, they can't win

[Oi_Ve]

It diminishes the value of the institution of marriage. I think it's Sweden where gay marriage is legal, (correct me if I'm wrong) and since then they have the numbers of traditional marriage by a man and a woman, way down.

1.) Heteros have diminshed the value of marriage as well.
2.) The idea of monogomy is a Greco-Roman idea; the Bible does not condemn polygomy, in fact it gives regulations to it.
3.) Lastly, what defines marriage? Seriously, how do we determine if two people are married?
Here's an example, all heterosexual and very real situations...

A) Two people, both atheists, want to get married. They don't have a wedding, seeing weddings as a religous ceremony (which it argueablly is), and instead simply sign the papers. Are they married?
B) Two people choose to spend their lives together. They buy a home, have children, and remain faithful to one another. However, they never have a wedding or sign any sort of legal document (and yes, this is very possible, just look at James Joyce). Are they married?
C) Two people have a wedding, sign documents, and live together, sometimes having sex. They both are not faithful to one another, nor do they mind the other's unfaithfulness. Is this a marriage?
D) (this one is a bit off base with the others, but it is likely) Two men spend their lives together. They live in the same house, help pay the bills, work, etc. However, they don't have sex. Are they homosexual?

Really, before we argue over who should be married, why don't we figure out what constitutes marriage, and maybe even homosexuality.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I think killing people would be counter productive to our survival, WAA.

Are you suggesting that murder be legalised, that it is on the same playing field as gay marriage?



Not adding to the next generation is simply not helping in the species continuation, not being counter productive to it.




Main Entry: coun·ter·pro·duc·tive
Pronunciation: -pr&-'d&k-tiv
Function: adjective
: tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal <violence as a means to
achieve an end is counterproductive -- W. E. Brock b1930>

Well gee, Oi_ve, looks to me that "counterproductive" and "not helping" are one and the same thing. Thanks for making my point.


And, about the island metphor, you're right. But here's the thing, you had a completely homosexual population that has no means of travel, but thats not an accurate picture of the world.

That's not the point. Jackass, over there was telling me that the whole "un-natural thing" and the "whole purpose for sex is procreation" thing was a religious doctrine, I was merely demonstrating that this was not the case. Thanks for paying attention.


Also, its good that you made sure they had unlimited reasources too, otherwise the heteros would die out. But we don't have unlimited reasources, either.

Now, you're just being asinine.


The real situation is an island with mostly heteros (99%, right?) and 1% homo, with only so many reaources (or, rather the ability to tap so many reasources). That 1% is not large enough to be detrimental to the populace, but it does act as a crude population control, which benefits future generations.

That depends on the context of the example. I've explained the context. The above does not apply.


And while it is a slippery slope, WAA, and people can scream 'freedom of expression' all they want, the fact remains that they have no legal case. Period. Let them bitch, they can't win

So now the 'persecuted' so to speak become the persecutors.

Jackass is a perfect example, he's all up in arms about allowing gay's to get married because there's 'nothing wrong with it', but he's vehemently opposed to say a brother and sister getting married


interspecies sexual contact is odd and illegal, so is incest........ it is a lame attempt to lump gays in with TRUE sickos in order to demonize them.

By allowing gay marriage, one is essentially opening Pandora's Box. Precident will have been set, and it will only be a matter of time before one activist judge somewhere deems the ban on incest to be unconstitutional, then it will be the same song and dance all over again.

Except then, it'll be the conservatives screaming "See I told you so" on the one side, and those that you are denying incestual relations to on the other side, screaming everything you are screaming now in defense of gay marriages.

I know you're more intelligent that this Oi_ve, concede the point and move on.

[Oi_Ve]

Are you suggesting that murder be legalised, that it is on the same playing field as gay marriage?


Well gee, Oi_ve, looks to me that "counterproductive" and "not helping" are one and the same thing. Thanks for making my point.

hin·der1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hndr)
v. hin·dered, hin·der·ing, hin·ders
v. tr.
To be or get in the way of.
To obstruct or delay the progress of.

v. intr.
To interfere with action or progress

Now then, let's say our goal is to make 100 babies in one year. If we have only 100 couples, then yes, counterproductiveness amount to not helping.
However, if we increase the number of couples to 200, now we have more than enough people to fulfill that number. Now let's say 100 couples become pregnant by month 3. The goal was to make 100 babies, we have at least 100 babies. There is no obligation for the other 100 to make babies, the goal has been filled.
What's the goal of procreation WAA? To continue the species, correct? Our heterosexual world population is so large now that we can produce enough offspring to further our species within the confines of 5-7 years here in America, and 2-4 years in less developed nations.
The goal is reached. Gays aren't hindering our goal, they're simply not helping us over shoot our goal.



That's not the point. Jackass, over there was telling me that the whole "un-natural thing" and the "whole purpose for sex is procreation" thing was a religious doctrine, I was merely demonstrating that this was not the case. Thanks for paying attention.

I'm just trying to help you hash out a different metaphor so he doesn't attack yours and we have a big uncivilized argument. I'm sure you could make a good case, its just that that wasn't a very good case. Sorry.



By allowing gay marriage, one is essentially opening Pandora's Box. Precident will have been set, and it will only be a matter of time before one activist judge somewhere deems the ban on incest to be unconstitutional, then it will be the same song and dance all over again.

Actually, not really attacking you in fact this might be more appropriate for Jackhabit, just stating something I picked up the otherday, beastiality is legal in 20 states. Just a random piece of trivia.

Either way, yes, it does open up a Pandora's Box. But so did allowing women and blacks to vote. Right now there is an injustice being done, and thats that the government is granting benefits to a group because of their sexuality and not another.
Now then, why does the government encourage marriage? Because its econmically proven that marriage makes people happy, happy people buy more, and buying more is better for the economy. thats a fairly simple explination, yes, but I'm lazy and I don't feel like explaining (i.e. quoting an economics book) the economic value of marriage.
Here's the clincher, gay couples help out the economy just as much as hetero couples do. So aren't they entitled to the same benefits?
While it does open up a pandora's box, sometimes we have to open it up in order to maintain the values we in America cherish.


Except then, it'll be the conservatives screaming "See I told you so" on the one side, and those that you are denying incestual relations to on the other side, screaming everything you are screaming now in defense of gay marriages.

I know you're more intelligent that this Oi_ve, concede the point and move on.

I see no legal problem with incest as long as its between two consenting adults.
But sometimes we have to go down a slippery slope in order to do the right thing.
And yes, I know half my excuses for something is that it goes down a slippery slope. But I'm not saying we shouldn't go down slippery slopes, just go down the one that isn't as slippery (i.e. putting the Feds in charge). Let states decide if they want to have gay marriages. That's what they're there for.

[alwaysRight]

States do decide. They put it on ballots for the people to vote on. People should decide this, and obviously people dont' want gay marriages seeing as 11 states shot the stupid law down.

I don't feel that a homosexual couple should get the same benefits that a heterosexual couple gets.

It used to be that a gay couple could get more benefits than a heterosexual couple, is that fair?

[Madcowhunter]

With regardas to polygamy, could someone tell me what the big deal is with that either? As long as they are consenting adults, why not? I can see there being restrictions as far as health benefits and what not. Bt as far as a moral issue, if they choose to live that way, who is the government to say they cant. In biblical times, wasnt it common for men to have many wives?

Dude, in biblical times. Men constantly cheated on their wives, with other men mostly. Not to mention in biblical times, women were amrrying old men as young as 14. Just because thousands of years ago it was practiced, doesn't mean it's right.

Now seriously, think. If polygamy was legal, the abortion rate would sky rocket, the welfare rate would skyrocket, and so would the number of divorces. And I don't think benefits are going to be given to men with five wives. These kind of couples would just constantly leech off other people. Also, I don't love between all those people could work, imagine YOU being a visitor to your wife's wedding.

[jackhabit]

i really love it when you dissect my posts quote by quote. looks like fun...


You haven't learned have you jackass.
Aren't you being a little intollerant, jackass? that makes you a hypocrite, but then what else is new. If you are going to berate others for being intollerant, it's advisable that you demonstrate a higher lever of tolerance.

i consider myself DAMN tolerant, but draw the line when intolerence it flying all around me (i.e. - santorum.) i've heard nothing but verbal gay-bashing from this prick since he took office, and since i wouldn't give him my vote i see no need to grant him any repsect either.


If you're too stupid not to realise that, that's your problem. Not mine.

never said it was. if anyone has a problem, it's you and your hate for those different from yourself who do NO harm to you and your choice of lifestyle.


I got one acronym for ya - NAMBLA!
Tell me what you know of NAMBLA and what their objectives are.

well, i know they're a bunch of pervs and that what they wish to do to children is illegal and sick. i also know there is NO connection between forced sexual contact with a minor and two ADULTS getting it on. you claim that once gay marriage is legalized, then all these fringe groups of perverts will demand their rights. my point is that ALL adults should (legally) be allowed to marry whoever they choose. the nambla thing holds no weight because there are NO provisions and no precident to protect the rights of criminals committing crimes. child abusers are criminals. gays are not.


Every arguement you and other homos of this country have brought up in defense of the homo unions will be used again by those engaging in incest, as well as beastiality etc etc. And all it's going to take is one 'freaky' judge to take your opposition to it, deem it unconstitutional and the next thing you know we have soddom and gommora on our hands.

so let's deny folks their due rights because of what you "perceive" as a possible threat. nice pre-emptive strike there. where'd you learn that?


No monkey boy, that is FACT! Take a group of homosexuals and slap them on an island, then take the same amount of hetrosexuals and put them on another island, give them food, water and access to medicine. Tell me which island is will have no life on it in 50 years, and which on will.

you obviously performed this experiment already, although you haven't said HOW it will happen. lemme guess, AIDS? yeah, cause straight people never suffer from that disease.


This has nothing to do with religion you stupid dumbass, this has everything to do with the natural order of things. God, you're an idiot.

and where does that "natural order of things" originate? where'd you first hear of it? GOD i'd really like to know.


First off, the majority of this country determines the direction of this country, this is not a minority ruled country. You dont like what the majority has to say, let me know cause I got a one way ticket to BFE with your name on it right here.

love it or leave it, huh? nice. very original too. the rally cry of the easily-threatened and intolerant. and i'd be willing to wager this isn't a majority issue wither. i'll bet that MOST folks don't care one way or another about it as it really doesn't affect them in any way. just my opinion.


Secondly, you can try to spin this as a religious issue all you want, it's not going to help, the FACT of the matter is that homosexuality, like beastiality, incest, pedophillia, necrophillia etc etc are all UNNATURAL, and are COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to the ADVANCEMENT OF THE SPECIES. Stick yer head in the sand all you want chump, it won't change those FACTS.

eh... that's NOT a fact, merely an opinion. just like mine is.



Have you ever noticed that when you sit down behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing?.

you used that once before on me. it was good then, and still stands up today. still waiting for the "3rd time's a charm" effect to take place and see if it's still dynamite comedic material. i'll say "yes," although i have been wrong before.


Reading this crap you've flung up on the screen reminds me of a remark that Stanislaw J. Lec's made: "Every now and then you meet someone whose ignorance is encyclopedic."

i never knew i made such a lasting impression on you. thanks, WAA!


If you can't figure that out, then you've got bigger problems than I thought. In future, wake up the dozy peglegged hamster operating that wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.."

so NOW you're prejudiced against crippled rodents? geez, what a fascist!

always enjoyable WAA, always.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

i consider myself DAMN tolerant, but draw the line when intolerence it flying all around me (i.e. - santorum.) i've heard nothing but verbal gay-bashing from this prick since he took office, and since i wouldn't give him my vote i see no need to grant him any repsect either.



Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED

You're either tolerant or you're not. There are no exceptions to being tolerant either, in other words you cannot pick and choose your 'tolerancees'.

The easiest thing for you to have done at this point would have been to concede that you're not tolerant. But like I said, you had to go and shove your foot in your mouth AGAIN.


never said it was. if anyone has a problem, it's you and your hate for those different from yourself who do NO harm to you and your choice of lifestyle.

Uhhhh yeah you did, you asked the question why, and as I pointed out you're too stupid to realise why. Has nothing to do with me pinhead, however, it has EVERYTHING to do with you.

Got it?



well, i know they're a bunch of pervs and that what they wish to do to children is illegal and sick.

Here's a quote off the front page of NAMBLA's website, I've added emphasis:


NAMBLA's membership is open to everyone sympathetic to personal freedom. Our goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships.


NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.[/

NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.

Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.

We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.



Now, read that and tell me that this is not Pandora's Box, BEGGING to be opened. This bunch are as much about 'civil rights', changing of the laws, etc etc as the gays are. In fact I'd have to say this bunch is about 3 years behind the Gay movement.

So spare me the rose tinted monologues, and try to have some small idea what in the hell you are talking about before you open you yap again.


i also know there is NO connection between forced sexual contact with a minor and two ADULTS getting it on. you claim that once gay marriage is legalized, then all these fringe groups of perverts will demand their rights. my point is that ALL adults should (legally) be allowed to marry whoever they choose. the nambla thing holds no weight because there are NO provisions and no precident to protect the rights of criminals committing crimes. child abusers are criminals. gays are not.

So essentially you are as biggoted toward these idiots as you feel I am toward gays?

Hmmmm, so who died and made you God to decide what is deviant activity and what isn't?



so let's deny folks their due rights because of what you "perceive" as a possible threat. nice pre-emptive strike there. where'd you learn that?

It's something I've seen in operation long before Bush was even govenor of Texas you stupid dumbass.

But what's really interesting is that you have no trouble denying NAMBLA proponents their rights?

Tell you what knucklehead, take the log out of your eye before you worry about the speck in mine


you obviously performed this experiment already, although you haven't said HOW it will happen. lemme guess, AIDS? yeah, cause straight people never suffer from that disease.

AIDS????? BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I never even thought about AIDS, what I was refering to, which apparently blew right over your head, was that the homo's would breed themselves into extinction, where as the hetro's would be more than capable of procreating, and producing life.

Somehow, though, I think you knew my point, but were too chicken to deal with it head on. Oh well, which ever it was, ignorance or cowardice, you still loose.



and where does that "natural order of things" originate? where'd you first hear of it? GOD i'd really like to know.

Ohh I dunno, Darwin?



love it or leave it, huh? nice. very original too. the rally cry of the easily-threatened and intolerant. and i'd be willing to wager this isn't a majority issue wither. i'll bet that MOST folks don't care one way or another about it as it really doesn't affect them in any way. just my opinion.

Hmmm

11 states had the balls to put the gay marriage vote up on the ballot, every single state voted against allowing gay marriage by LARGE MARGINS. What does that tell you?

Seems to me MOST FOLKS do care about it, and they don't want it.



eh... that's NOT a fact, merely an opinion. just like mine is.

It's a FACT that homosexuals cannot PROCREATE
It's a FACT that the reproductive organs are designed for the purpose of PROCREATION
It's a FACT that Men do not have uterises or the abililty to carry and nurture a child, and women do not have penises to impregnate other woman.
It's a FACT that without the ability to procreat the species would become extinct

So much for that.



you used that once before on me. it was good then, and still stands up today. still waiting for the "3rd time's a charm" effect to take place and see if it's still dynamite comedic material. i'll say "yes," although i have been wrong before.

I've laid the smack down on you so many times, I've lost count. There hasn't been any "3rd time's a charm" for me. I still find it hysterically funny. So what's your point.....oh, that's right you never have one.


i never knew i made such a lasting impression on you. thanks, WAA!

It's a sad day when someone revels in making that kind of impression.



so NOW you're prejudiced against crippled rodents? geez, what a fascist!

always enjoyable WAA, always.

What ever floats your boar jackass

[jackhabit]

Hmmmm, so who died and made you God to decide what is deviant activity and what isn't?

nobody, but if you can't admit that harming a child falls under deviant activity then you have some problems.

as for the rest of your crap, eh...

but i do have one last question:

"WILL YOU MARRY ME, WAA?"

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

nobody, but if you can't admit that harming a child falls under deviant activity then you have some problems.

That's a no brainer, however, you dodging the issue AGAIN, all it takes is one activist pedophile judge to rule ONCE that the ban against pedophillia is unconstitutional and it's over. What will you do then? hmmmmm?


as for the rest of your crap, eh...

but i do have one last question:

"WILL YOU MARRY ME, WAA?"

You should be so lucky and I should be so desperate.

[jackhabit]

That's a no brainer, however, you dodging the issue AGAIN, all it takes is one activist pedophile judge to rule ONCE that the ban against pedophillia is unconstitutional and it's over. What will you do then? hmmmmm?

then why can't they just do that NOW if that's their aim? why the need to wait for a gay marriage bill to pass? what does one have to do with the other?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

then why can't they just do that NOW if that's their aim? why the need to wait for a gay marriage bill to pass? what does one have to do with the other?

IT'S CALLED PRECEDENT YOU IDIOT!!!!!!

How many times have I said it's about precedent?

Dear God

[Oi_Ve]

there's a difference here WAA, and that difference makes it a hell of a lot harder to use precedent.
Homosexuality is not illegal. Pedophilia is.
Pedophiles have to first prove that their actions are legal before they can try and claim marriage benefits. And that's gonna be hard as hell to do.
Now then, yes, a liberal activist judge could pull something and we would have this arguement again with pedophiliacs.
I say bring it! Settle the matter once and for all. The pedophiles will lose and their actions will be condemned.
Pedophiles have to go through these steps...
1.) make it legal that children be capable of signing legal documents.
2.) make it legal to have sexual relations with a minor
3.) Prove that their unions are not harmful to children mentally, physically and socially.
4.) Prove that their unions are constructive and beneficial to society, thus warranting marrige benefits.
How many states do you think are gonna pass all those laws? Even California would have a tough time.
Also, remember that NAMBLA says it wants to work with gays, but how many gays are saying that they want to work with NAMBLA. Gays and pedophiles aren't secretly working to together to destroy American society. Gays hate pedophiles as much as the next person.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Homosexuality is not illegal. Pedophilia is.

Homosexuality was illegal in the past, and it got changed, all it took was one judge......(why does that sound familiar??? Oh yeah that's right BECAUSE I'VE SAID IT ABOUT A BAZILLION TIMES)


Pedophiles have to first prove that their actions are legal before they can try and claim marriage benefits. And that's gonna be hard as hell to do.

*Bury's head in hands*


Now then, yes, a liberal activist judge could pull something and we would have this arguement again with pedophiliacs.
I say bring it! Settle the matter once and for all. The pedophiles will lose and their actions will be condemned.

And in so doing you will be in exactly the same position that I am in right now, and that is quintessential hypocracy.


Pedophiles have to go through these steps...
1.) make it legal that children be capable of signing legal documents.
2.) make it legal to have sexual relations with a minor
3.) Prove that their unions are not harmful to children mentally, physically and socially.
4.) Prove that their unions are constructive and beneficial to society, thus warranting marrige benefits.

There's nothing new there. The gay's have been through those, the 'findings' are contingent on the 'testimony' of 'experts' that imho have been bought, and the gavel of one activist judge, who more than likely is a homo himself.

If homo's can do it, it can and will be done by NAMBLA, people wanting to engage in incest blah.....blah....blah.


How many states do you think are gonna pass all those laws? Even California would have a tough time.

As you have seen, the votes of people mean less and less. Something get made law, and it gets overturned by a judge as an unconstitutional law.

It's called legislating from the bench.



Also, remember that NAMBLA says it wants to work with gays, but how many gays are saying that they want to work with NAMBLA.

By the same token, I don't see gays and lesbians repulsing NAMBLA either.


Gays and pedophiles aren't secretly working to together to destroy American society. Gays hate pedophiles as much as the next person.

And you know this for sure because????? As for hating pedophiles, NAMBLA don't consider themselves pedophiles, they consider themselves to be VICTIMS of AGEISM. Being an alleged 'victim' is something these homo's can relate to, so suddenly the lines between the criminality and the victimisation of NAMBLA become blurred.