Added: 2 years ago
From: capnsteele
Views: 29,479
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (503)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I believe that Negros are woolly headed, thick lipped baboons. Let's not put up with any more affirmative action ripoffs, come join the Nationalist movement.

  • homosexual

    

  • Actually, this was suppossed to have come out before the pageant. This was one of the things Carrie was asked to do that she declined to do. Just saying.

  • This is in response to Miss USA California and her viess on gay marriage. They are saying that everyone, be it support gay marriage or not has their choice in believing that. They are also stating that they believe everyone has a choice to marry the one they love. Being straight, gay, lesbian, black, Asian, Chinese, etc.

  • @Fan06 Spoken like a true liberal.

  • I believe they don't necessary support carrie's opinion (they said they believe in different opinions) but defiinitely promote having respect. You don't call someone a bit_h if someone disagree with you.

  • being good if they didn't want Carrie to voice her opinion? That seems a little hypocritical and to be honest, kind of confuses me... Can someone explain please?

  • Um is this promoting Carrie Prejean's answer and supporting her? It sure sounds like it because they are saying stuff like "I believe every American has the right to their own opinion" and "I believe everyone has a voice and that voice can make a difference" it sounds like they are supporting Carrie and her answer but I thought that Shanna and Keith were against her answer and for gay marrige... Why did they run out and make this commercial that says all this stuff about opinions and voices

  • I believe in love?

    They're not saying anything, just random vague crap.

  • Comment removed

  • OH MY GOD!!!!!

    they do not believe in homosexual love!!!!

    that beauty of california is in the eye of the beholder. i see gunk and junk.

    "i believe marrage (love) is between a man and a woman"

    this was paid for by the carrie prejean foundation.

  • Distancing themselves from the Prejean train wreck. A little damage control.

  • Love? Love is in fact not possible for homosexuals, since their condition is purely the result of pain and injury. The psychological trauma of being child-raped by one's own father, or the prenatal malformation of the pituitary gland, are not events that constitute or assist "love"! Homosexuals conflict with existence, do not fit in with the description of the rest of life, and are therefore analogous with cancer, hundreds of times more likely to develop fatal conditions than heterosexuals.

  • Hmm I believe these girls beliefs don't matter to me. I've lived a real life, will they ever?

  • nicely put

  • ObamaOpposesItToo: "Is that all you know how to do? Insult people?"

    ObamaOpposesItToo (very next comment): "I love destroying intolerant gay bigots."

    Walking hypocrite.

  • Hmm...you don't like being insulted, do you? Well maybe if you'd stop calling people things like "stupid" and "dumbass", you'd be treated accordingly.

    Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

  • Where in the last few comments have i complained about being insulted? It is YOU that is bitching about being insulted. I simply exposed your hypocrisy of complaining about being insulted and then the very next comment, you insult me. WALKING TALKING HYPOCRITE.

  • Umm...you complained about being called a bigot. Also, my comments were intended to expose YOUR hypocrisy, and everything played out perfectly.

  • Hence, RECENT comments. I complained about a week ago before I made ANY insults, when you insisted on calling me a gay bigot, I warned you that u shouldnt expect anything less from me if you continue to insult me. U did. So I did. Then you bitched and complained about being insulted AFTER you insulted me. HYPOCRISY!

  • "I complained about a week ago..."

    Hehehe...I love getting you gays to admit when you're wrong...

  • Hehehe....I love how I didnt admit anything and yet you think I did....

  • You did.

  • Nope. You did.

  • Not at all.

  • Chelsea is amazing and beautiful! she goes to my church :)

  • You believe in what is called post-modernism -- which is basically whatever you want, and it will disappear.

  • Anime girls getting abused - _BADXXXCHICKS._COM_

  • OOIT:

    Nice talking today and I gotta go, but let me summarize what I've heard from you:

    - Those same-sex couples who got married in my church and dozens of others are "religiophobes".

    - The Mormons and others who try to ban other churches from marrying their members as they wish are not "religiophobes".

    - Churches who support same-sex marriage are "cults" and "breakaways," even if marriage equality is the official policy of the church and the church has been around for centuries.

    Got it.

  • - No, no, no. Religiphobes are those who discriminate against religious people.

    - No one wants to ban churches from marrying their members. We just don't like it when those members try to force the rest of the country to recognize their unions as marriage.

    - Gay marriage is the official policy of no church, only sects and cults.

    Nice talking to you, too.

  • Holy shit, they didn't really say anything, did they, true to the airhead beauty queen image, and the one who did say something, stated that we should take pride in diversity, like that would include other types of felons, such as rapists, child molesters, etc etc. Diversity is only good when it is applied to the morally sound portion of the diversity the human species express.

    Why do those who support gays always sound so angry, or resort to namecalling and foul language? No character IMO.

  • WOW all these cunts are fake as hell!

  • I believe...

    I believe...

    I believe.....that Obama has the same opinion as the former Miss CA.

    So how come these smug and sanctimonious women aren't speaking out against him? (He is currently defending DOMA in court)

  • "ObamaOpposesItToo":

    Lie.

    For multiple news reports on the truth, just google:

    Obama opposes Prop 8

  • Illiterate. (But typical of people on your side)

    -Miss CA said, "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

    -Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    Since you're so good with Google, you may want to search for this quote yourself.

  • (continued)

    But I have a feeling that you won't conduct a search. Instead, you'll just reply with another lie (or personal attack) and remain as sanctimonious as the women in this video.

    (BTW, if you don't know what 'sanctimonious' means, just google it)

  • Carrie was asked about LAWS that ban same-sex marriage.

    No one cares what the bimbo's personal belief is on the subject, and I don't really care what Obama's (or yours) is, OOIT. There are as many personal beliefs as as there are people.

    But I care very much if Carrie wants to take steps to use the law to FORCE her neighbors to live according to her personal beliefs. Those are the laws she was asked about and those are the laws that Obama has said on the record that he opposes.

  • Wrong (as expected). You conveniently left out the 2nd question, which was, "Why or why not?" which she clearly answered.

    Of course you don't care what Obama's position is because it destroys your entire argument. If she's a "bimbo", then so is he, since he agrees with her. (But I'd never expect you to admit this)

    BTW, I don't know if you're aware of this, but over 7 million people voted for Prop 8. Why are you aiming your vitriol at ONE person? Answer: because you don't like her. (cont)

  • Oh, and those 7 million Californians certainly don't want people like you trying to FORCE their neighbors to accept your own personal beliefs.

    And to further prove your hypocrisy, Obama is defending DOMA in court. (Since you're good with Google, feel free to look up what 'DOMA' means) If you really cared about fighting laws with which you disagree, then you'd be focusing on the President, who actually has influence on public policy, rather than a 21-year-old beauty pageant contestant.

  • Nobody's forcing the 7 million to do a thing. If two gals next door get hitched, it doesn't affect you a bit, OOIT. Quit whining.

    " If you really cared about fighting laws ..."

    -- Of course I try to influence the Prez, but but preachy YouTubers like you and lying, hypocritical whores like Carrie are a fun diversion from time to time.

    Enjoy your Sunday.

  • Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I knew it wouldn't take long for the petty personal attacks and hate-filled comments to ensue. (You're following the script perfectly)

    You claim I'm "preachy", yet the comment to which you originally responded simply pointed out the Obama and Miss CA agree on gay marriage. (Is he preachy too?) And you're the one who brought up Prop 8 because you want ALL Californians to recognize same-sex marriage, even if they disagree. (Are you being preachy now?)

    (cont)

  • "... these smug and sanctimonious women ..."

    "... typical of people on your side ..."

    I'd say "preachy" pretty well covers it.

  • Umm...do you even know what 'smug' and 'sanctimonious' means? And how is the second quote "preachy"?

    If that's your definition of "preachy", then you're even more guilty of the same crime.

    "...the bimbo's personal belief is on the subject."

    I'd say "preachy" pretty well covers this even more.

  • Also, Miss CA is a "lying, hypocritical whore" because.....you disagree with her? I love hearing people like you complain when gays are called "lying fa**" or "dumb dy***", yet you go around gleefully hurling insult after insult yourself. Do me a favor and google 'hypocrisy'...

  • Let's see ...

    - While holding a position by which she pledged to "represent the diversity of all California," sold herself to the NOM to make ads to ban the rights of some Californians.

    - Claimed to be happy to live in a land where "we all can choose" while campaigning to remove that choice from one group of her neighbors.

    - Lied about underage topless photographs on her pageant application, against pageant rules.

    I'd say (3) lying, (2) hypocritical (1) whore is just about right.

  • Let's see...

    -If she had stated your (minority) opinion, then she would have alienated the 7 million Californians who agree with her. (But you don't care about them or their views because you disagree with them, huh?)

    -Gays like you claim to be happy to live in a land where they "can choose" gay marriage) while campaigning to force their choice on their neighbors.

    -You people lied about the real issues. Other contestants took similar photos...

  • "Other contestants took similar photos..."

    And they all reported those photos on their applications to the Miss USA pageant, as required by the rules.

    All except Carrie. She was almost thrown out because of this rules violation. However, a wealthy older man who thought she was pretty bent the rules and let her stay on for a time.

    Sadly, I suspect this is not the last time in Carrie's life we'll be hearing that ...

  • You missed the point. Nobody else in the pageant has taken heat for such petty "violations" because people like you don't perceive them as a threat to their agenda. For example, Tara Conner used cocaine, but gays didn't demand her ouster because they're hypocrites. (Apparently, gay people like you believe that a photograph is worse than illegal drugs. No surprise though, since hypocrisy is expected from you people.)

  • OOIT: "For example, Tara Conner used cocaine ..."

    -- Ah, first you said I was wrong when I called Carrie a liar, and now it appears your position is that lying isn't really so bad, compared to other things.

    Please don't misunderstand: I don't care if Carrie used drugs or posed naked straddling a beer bottle. I do care that she lied to get into a contest and then went on TV preaching about how she deserves special rights that she wants to ban some of her neighbors from having.

  • Not at all. You were wrong, and I was merely pointing out the double standard that religiphobic people like you have. "Semi-nude" is ambiguous. Some people think it means frontal nudity, some think it means being completely nude but covered up, some think it means something else. Also, there were some pictures that were allegedly taken without her knowledge.

    Unfortunately, we'll never know the truth about any of these things, so we'll just have to accept Mr. Trump's decision...

  • Unfortunately for the religiphobes, Mr. Trump never agreed that she lied and even said that the pictures are fine and that he likes them. So I think I'll take his word over yours.

    As for gay couples, I don't care if they get together. I do care that they lie saying that they're not forcing anything on anyone and then campaign about how they deserve to be granted special rights that they want to force all of their neighbors to recognize.

  • What "special rights" are gay couples asking for, exactly?

    Right now I have the "right" to pay more income tax than you because of your marriage exemption, the "right" to support your widow through her social security survivor's benefits and through her exemption from paying estate tax. My partner will get zip from these sources when I'm gone and will have the "right" to have to sell our home just to pay the inheritance tax that your wife's exempt from.

    Are those my "special" rights, OOIT?

  • "What "special rights" are gay couples asking for, exactly?"

    Gay marriage, which has never been the norm. As for your point on benefits, civil unions can take care of that.

    "What are religiphobes, and what do they have to do with Donald Trump?"

    You seem like a smart guy. You mean to tell me you can't figure out what it means? Let me explain, a religiphobe is just like a homophobe, except they discriminate against religious people. (They also ignore Trump's verdict about the pictures)

  • What are religiphobes, and what do they have to do with Donald Trump?

  • OOIT: "-Gays like you claim to be happy to live in a land where they "can choose" gay marriage) while campaigning to force their choice on their neighbors."

    -- Hogwash. No one in any of the states where same-sex marriage is legal has been forced to marry someone of the same sex.

  • "No one in any of the states where same-sex marriage is legal has been forced to marry someone of the same sex."

    Hogwash, because this wasn't my point. In all of the states where same-sex marriage is legal, everyone is forced to recognize those "marriages" even if they disagree. So basically, the intolerant, religiphobic bigots don't like it when people have different opinions from them. How tolerant.

  • "everyone is forced to recognize those "marriages" even if they disagree"

    -- How, exactly?

  • "How, exactly?"

    Gays want to force everyone to call their unions 'marriage'. (The religiphobic bigots don't like it when people disagree with them)

  • So the Catholics won't marry divorced people. If two divorced Methodists get married in their own Methodist church down the block, are they "forcing" the Catholics to call their union a marriage? Are those two Methodists religiophobic bigots, too?

  • No, it's called 'religious freedom', something that religiphobes don't understand. Also, Catholics aren't forced to do anything. They accept male-female unions as marriage already.

  • OOIT: "a religiphobe is just like a homophobe, except they discriminate against religious people"

    -- We witnessed 30 weddings in my congregation last summer, nine of them between same-sex couples. Hundreds of other same-sex marriages were consecrated in dozens of churches across CA. The Mormons, helped by some Catholics and a few others, paid lawyers to try to forcibly divorce those couples. They essentially broke into my church and defiled our sacraments.

    So are they "religiophobes," OOIT?

  • They didn't divide those couples. They're still married.

    BTW, 'churches' who recognize same-sex marriage aren't really churches since they follow no tradition, only their own.

  • "They didn't divide those couples. They're still married."

    -- But the Mormons paid for lawyers to try to divorce them. Is that not meddling in another church?

    And they paid millions to pass a law that forbids further such marriages. Sounds like they are "religiophobes," by your definition.

  • You should already know that people can pretty much sue for anything they want. If someone wants to sue you for slander (or anything else), they have every right to do so. And a jury has every right to return a verdict of 'not guilty".

    As for the Prop 8, the religiphobic bigots paid millions to force their opinion on 30 million Californians.

    Oh yeah, and just because something calls itself a 'church', that doesn't make it a church at all. For example, if I start an organization that...

  • ...wants to kill all animals and then proceed to call this organization a 'church' and accuse the government of being anti-religious when they try to stop the actions of this 'church', I don't think any sane person would argue that this 'church' deserves any protections.

    Like I said before, just because someone says that something is a 'church' doesn't make it a church at all.

  • OOIT: "if I start an organization that wants to kill all animals and then proceed to call this organization a 'church' ..."

    -- Most of funds for Prop 8 the came from one group who believe they will become gods after death and that each will rule over another planet, and from another group that ritually cannibalizes their deity each week. IMHO, they all have equal religious rights and are no better or worse than your made-up animal-killers.

  • Really? So you think my fictitious organization should be recognized as a religion??

    (Also, for the record, Mormons are real Americans. When we outlawed polygamy, they simply said, "OK, America doesn't want polygamy, so we have to give it up!" They (unlike gays) put their money where their mouth is and didn't cry and whine like babies.)

  • Comment removed

  • "When we outlawed polygamy, they simply said, "OK, America doesn't want polygamy, so we have to give it up!"

    LOL-The Mormons gave up polygamy only when Utah couldn't achieve statehood without first outlawing the practice.

    The LDS church only allowed membership for African Americans when Carter threatened the LDS church with withdrawl of their tax-exempt status.

    "Mormons are real Americans."

    Hardly-they only make such changes when threatened with severe political consequences.

  • Somebody said:

    "LOL!

    "Apparently, you are not aware that Mormons "gave up" polygamy because they were about to lose their tax-exempt status..."

    Haha...apparently this person was not aware of the facts before he posted because he had to do 15 minutes' worth of internet research to find out the truth. LOL!

  • Actually, I just had the dates and occurrances backwards and realized it after the fact. Either way, neither the abolition of polygamy nor the addition of full memberships for blacks occurred because Mormons are "real Americans"...except in your fantasy world

  • Nice try.....you have lots of things "backwards".

  • So you still suggest that Mormons discontinued polygamy simply because they were told to do so?

  • Umm...do they currently practice it? Point proven.

  • Actually, many do currently practice polygamy. The LDS Church does not endorse it...under the pretense of morality when politics and power were the real reason for the change in policy.

  • "The LDS Church does not endorse it"

    Thank you.

  • "They (unlike gays) put their money where their mouth is... "

    Actually, that's exactly what the Mormons did...sell out their "religious practices" for money and power.

  • ...or they're simply following the law.

  • "...simply following the law."

    History says otherwise, but ignoring history is a great way to create support for an argument as to who is a "real American" and who isn't.

  • "The LDS Church does not endorse it"

    ...because they love their country, follow its laws, and don't want to force their opinion on the rest of America. God bless these patriots.

  • "...follow it's laws, and don't want to force their opinion on the rest of America..."

    ...only when to the consequences of NOT complying would limit the LDS church's wealth or influence. A struggle for money and political power disguised as religion is not particularly "patriotic".

  • "...only when to [sic] the consequences of NOT complying would limit the LDS..."

    Not complying with any law has consequences. (Most people realize that)

  • BTW, I'd love to be disabled and stay on the computer 24 hours a day, but some of us actually have to work for a living since we don't get government handouts.

    Time for sleep. Take care.

  • "...some of us actually have to work for a living since we don't get government handouts."

    I've never gotten a government handout in my life. I work every day. Many disabled persons do.

    It's sad, yet not surprising that a person like you would say such a thing, considering your prejudicial comments.

    Sounds a lot like hate...but I guess you call it "patriotism", right?

  • The LDS Church doesnt want to force their opinion on the rest of America???? Are you fukin kidding me? Yea, thats why they spent millions of dollars to endorse prop 8?

  • "Gay marriage supporters don't want to force their opinion on the rest of America????? Are you f***ing kidding me? Yeah, that's why they spent millions of dollars to oppose Prop 8!"

  • Sorry that doesnt fit the bill. You know why? Because we are talking about equality! I dont consider "equality" an opinion. It is a right. Gays are fighting for their equal right to get married under the law. The LDS church, on the other hand, is trying to impose their religious moral view on gays. How are gay marri. supporters "forcing" their opinion? Are they taking away the rights of straight ppl to marry?

  • "Sorry, that doesn't fit the bill. You know why? Because we are talking about equality! I don't consider "equality" an opinion. It is a right. Polygamists are fighting for their equal right to get married under the law. Gays, on the other hand, are trying to impose their views on everybody else. How are polygamy supporters "forcing" their opinion? Are they taking away the rights of non-polygamists to marry?"

  • "How is polygamy a religious practice when polygamists just want to be accepted by the rest of America? They're not hurting anyone. Nice reach there, buddy. You FAIL!"

    Your bigotry against polygamists proves how intolerant you are.

  • Glad to see that you're finally starting to act like a rational human being instead of an intolerant gay bigot.

    Gays want to have everything in such a way that they, and only they, benefit. If they are allowed to change the gender in "1 man, 1 woman", then there is no reason to legally deny letting polygamists change the number.

  • Who said that I was gay? Oh, thats right no one. You just ASSumed cuz u think that anyone that supports equal rights is gay. lol.

    Lets not play the slippery slope card here. Who sets the definition of marriage in the first place? The Christian majority? That is the point. You can't provide any secular rational for excluding gays from marrying.

  • "Let's not play the slippery slope card here. Who sets the definition of gay marriage in the first place? The gay minority? That is the point. You can't provide any rational reason for excluding polygamists from marrying."

  • Funny how you included the slippery slope comment and yet I didnt use a slippery slope argument. Nice try.

    Stop talking about polygamy, that is a red herring. Stick to the topic. And i already gave you a rational reason why I personally think that polygamists shouldnt have govt recognized marriages. You just dont pay attention. But again, separate issue.

  • "Funny how you initially made a slippery slope comment, yet I never used a slippery slope argument. Terrible try.

    "Stop talking about gay marriage. That is a red herring. Stick to the topic of polygamy. And I already gave you a rational reason why I personally think that gays shouldn't have government recognized marraiges. You just haven't paid attention. But again, separate issue."

  • I know you dont have an original thought in your brain but do you really have to copy and paste nonsensically? You wont listen to rational arguments so fine. Lets have polygamy marriages AND gay marriages.

  • Thanks for finally being consistent for once in your life. It is a perfectly valid position to support marriage for both gays AND polygamists. I just happen to disagree.

    So let's put it up for a vote with the people and live with the consequences. If people want gay marriage and polygamy, then I can live with that. Unfortunately for you intolerant gay bigots, people DON'T want either, yet gays can't come to terms with it (although polygamists have). You are 0-30 in the states. Nice record!

  • It is a perfectly valid position to support marriage for both gays AND straights.

    Civil rights shouldnt be put up for a vote. This is why we have minority protections. You are a bigot for opposing equal rights. And again, I am not gay. If you insist on labeling me something I am not then dont expect anything less than insults in my replies.

    Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 6 states. 0-30?

  • Drivers licenses, hunting license, marriage licenses, etc. are not a civil right. They can be regulated by the government. You are a bigot for trying to force your beliefs on me. Gays already have equal rights. They are free to marry somebody of the opposite sex, just like straight people.

    Same-sex marriage can only be legalized when state legislature thwart the will of the people. Gay marriage has lost every time voters get to decide themselves. Your bigoted side's record is 0-30. Yeah!

  • Ok. Lets take away straight marriage. Make gay marriage legal. And then tell me that straights have an equal right to marry anyone from the same sex! lol. What a stupid argument.

    What is this 0-30 record you are refering to?

  • "Lets [sic] take away straight marriage."

    Ah, now we're getting the truth! THIS is the ultimate goal of gay bigots.

    "What is this 0-30 record you are refering [sic] to?"

    You're a little slow, aren't you? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you haven't even researched the topic? Plus, I already answered this!

    I'll type slow for you: Gay marriage is legal ONLY when state legislatures thwart the will of the people. It has lost in EVERY state when people get to vote directly

  • "THIS is the ultimate goal of gay bigots."

    Wow, you are seriously mentally challenged. It was a rational point that you can't address so you have to dance around with stupid comments like this.

    52% to 48% is a small margin but appealing to the majority equal rights issues is retarded in the first place. You know that it took power of the courts to legalize interracial marriage? Not the popular vote.

  • "Wow, you are seriously mentally challenged."

    Typical statement from a typical bigot. You people always resort to petty personal attacks.

    "but appealing to the majority equal rights issues..."

    The law treats everyone equally. Both straight people AND gay people can marry the opposite sex. But neither straights NOR gays can marry the same sex. As you can see, the law is applied equally.

    "...of the courts to legalize interracial marriage."

    Interracial marriage is only legal...

  • "You people always resort to petty personal attacks."

    HAHAHAHA. And you calling me gay and a bigot is not a personal attack?!?!? ROTFL. You're fuken retarded.

    "the law is applied equally."

    & i gave a counter example and you couldnt respond. The law discriminates against gay couples.

  • "HAHAHAHA. And YOU calling ME a bigot is not a personal attack?!?!? ROTFL."

    "You're fuken retarded."

    Personal attacks and profanity--the MO of gay marriage supporters.

    "The law discriminates against gay couples."

    The law of "1 man, 1 woman" is applied equally to both gays and straights. (You gay people just want special laws)

  • I called you a bigot only in reply to your calling me one and after several comments in which I told you to stop with the personal attacks or dont expect to not have insults thrown back. And yet you continued. And now you are complaining about personal attacks???? WTF? Seriously retarded.

    "Personal attacks and profanity--the MO of anti-gay marriage supporters."

    The law of "1 woman, 1 woman" can be applied to both gays and straights. (You anti-gay marriage supporters just want special laws)

  • "I called you a bigot only in reply to you calling me 'intolerant'. Then you make even more vicious attacks and start using profanity. WTF? Seriously retarded."

    "The law of "1 woman, 1 woman" can be applied to both gays and straights."

    WRONG, because it's not "the law".....LOL!!

  • I warned you and now you're bitching. Seriously, stfu.

    "WRONG, because it's not "the law".....LOL!! "

    Yeah, it was a hypothetical, dumbass. Just goes to show how narrow minded you are that you cant even accept a hypothetical that shows a serious flaw in your reasoning.

  • "Seriously, stfu.

    You keep replying to me, yet you tell ME to stfu...LOL

    "Yeah, it was a hypothetical, dumbass."

    Sigh...more personal attacks. I'm happy when I see this though because it means that your argument has no substance. (BTW, 'hypothetical' means that something isn't true, so you just implicitly made my point...LOL)

  • ...in some cases, not all. It's only legal when one person (regardless of race) is a man and the other (regardless of race) is a woman. Interracial marriage is still illegal when it comes to gay marriage, and it needs to stay that way.

  • You do know that interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states....right? I mean, that is wat i was talking about. You telling me what the laws are now, is pointless.

  • "You do know that interracial marriage used to be illegal in some states"

    Man, you really are slow (or you just don't read). I already addressed this.

    I'll type slow again: Interracial marriage still is illegal in many states.

  • "I'll type slow again: Interracial marriage still is illegal in many states."

    FAIL. Interracial marriage is legal in all 50 states.

  • My suspicions have been confirmed--you don't read my comments. (Perhaps it's because you're illiterate?) Anyway, let me refute you yet again:

    "Interracial marriage is legal in all 50 states."

    ...only between a man and a woman, Skippy.

  • "...only between a man and a woman, Skippy."

    Yes, that was insinutated, skippy.

    And let me quote your dumbass: "I'll type slow again: Interracial marriage still is illegal in many states."

    No where in there do I see anything about sexual orientation. Skippy.

  • ...you, yet you now concede that "EVERY LAW is 'forcing'".....LOL!

    "And let me quote your dumbass:"

    Is that all you know how to do? Insult people? (Then again, I can understand your frustration since your argument is so weak)

    "No where [sic] in there do I see anything about sexual orientation."

    I'll answer by quoting an ignoramus: "Yes, that was insinutated [sic], skippy [sic]." LOL!!!!

    (BTW, the word is 'insinuated', genius, NOT 'insinutated'. What the hell is that??)

  • Hm, I recall bringing up the interracial thing, so im pretty sure that my insinuation takes precedent.

  • Good, so you admit that you recognized my insinuation. (You're making progress, son)

  • No. I did not. Apparently you have reading comrehension problems. You TOLD me that was your insinuation but since I brought up the topic, it was be wrong of you to change the meaning of what I was saying; at least that would be dishonest...wouldnt you agree, son? lol.

  • Take a look at this thread. You can't even speak properly, let alone think straight.

    Also, no I wouldn't agree because what I said was pretty self-explanatory. Anyone with an ounce of honesty would know that the statement "Interracial marriage is still illegal in some states" insinuates that I'm NOT talking about normal marriage. Duh!

    But you're not honest, so this doesn't apply to you...LOL

  • BTW, I can play your lil copy and paste game too:

    "Straights want to have everything in such a way that they, and only they, benefit."

    See! XD

  • "Straights want to have everything in such a way that they, and only they, benefit."

    Yep, I knew you weren't straight at all.

  • Believe what you want, I really dont care.

  • Obviously you do care; otherwise you wouldn't be responding. You're just upset because Americans won't allow you to force your intolerant, bigoted opinion on them.

  • Really? Are ppl really forcing straight ppl to marry to the same sex? lol. What exactly are they getting forced into??? The supporters of prop8 on the other hand are restricting a group of ppls rights.

  • Really? Are people really forcing gay people to marry the opposite sex? Who exactly are gays being forced to marry? The opponents of Prop 8, on the other hand, are restricting religious people's rights."

  • HOW ARE THEY RESTRICTING PPLS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS??? How are gays being forced? They are being STOPPED from marrying the person they want.

    And its nice that you admit that opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, which would preclude the govt from opposing gay marriage bcuz the govt cannot take a religious stand.

  • "HOW ARE THEY RESTRICTING PPLS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS???"

    See my previous comment.

    "admit that opposition to gay marriage is a religious one"

    Nice way to twist words around. (But I've come to expect that from intolerant gay bigots like you)

    You want to know the truth? I do NOT subscribe to any religion, but I do subscribe to common sense. And forcing an entire nation to accept YOUR view on gay marriage makes no sense at all. I will do everything to help religious people fight your bigotry

  • Again, there are no rights being taken away from the religious. They can believe whatever they want. They can marry whomever they want.

    How am I intolerant? Oh right, because im intolerant of homophobic discriminating bigots like you. Oh, but forcing the entire nation to accept YOUR view is perfectly okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Bigotry? Youre stopping ppl from marrying the ppl that they love because of your homophobia. If anything, YOU are the bigot.

  • You intolerant gays want to force your opinion on religious people, and that's a darn shame.

    "How am I intolerant? Oh right, because I'm intolerant of religiphobic gay bigots like you. Oh, but forcing the entire nation to accept YOUR view on gay marriage is perfectly OK. Yeah, that makes sense."

    "Bigotry? You're forcing people to recognize gay marriage because of your religiphobia. If anything, YOU are the bigot."

  • Its ironic that you are gay and you oppose gay marriage. Weird.

    Im not forcing ppl to do anything. If anything it would be forcing the govt to recognise gay marriage.

    I dont discriminate or try to put up propositions that would change state constitutions that would eliminate the rights of religious or otherwise.

  • "It's ironic that you are not gay and you support gay marriage. Weird."

    "I'm not forcing ppl to do anything. If anything it would be forcing the govt to recognise [sic] gay marriage."

    Nice way to contradict yourself...LOL

    "I dont discriminate..."

    Another nice contradiction, Mr. Religiphobe...LOL

    "...or try to put up propositions that would change state constitutions that would eliminate the rights of religious or otherwise."

    Because you intolerant bigots have lost 30 times.

  • And yet I am engaged with a white woman, and I support interracial marriage. I guess that weird for you too. ROTFL.

    No contradiction.

    No response again.

  • "And yet I am engaged with a white woman"

    Send her my condolences.

    "I support interracial marriage."

    I do too, as long as it's between a man and a woman.

    "No contradiction. No response."

    (regarding the fact that gay marriage has NEVER been recognized by the majority in all of human history)

  • Again, ignored the point. Youre good at this. lol.

    "(regarding the fact that gay marriage has NEVER been recognized by the majority in all of human history)"

    Really? Because I am fairly sure that the majority in San Francisco would say otherwise. OOOOH!!! PWNED! HAHAHA.

  • Interracial marriage between heterosexual couples was BANNED. (There's a difference between "defining" something and "banning" it, Einstein)

    "Because I am fairly sure that the majority in San Francisco would say otherwise"

    Gay marriage in San Francisco was legal for what, like, a year? OTOH, gay marriage has never been recognized in over 2000 years. I'll take 2000 over 1 any day...LOL

    "OOOOH!!! PWNED! HAHAHA."

    I should have known that you are a juvenile (or just act like one).

  • "There's a difference between "defining" something and "banning" it, Einstein"

    Redefining marriage as only between a man and a woman DOES in effect BAN gay marriage. Einstein.

    You made a blanket statement that was absolutely wrong. So my pwnage still stands. LOL.

  • Umm...you obviously have no legal training (or potty training, it seems). A 'legal definition' and a 'legal ban' are entirely different things, although I doubt you'll recognize this since you only seem to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.

    I can't believe it actually took you THREE days to come up with this nonsense.

  • If gay ppl want to get married, then in a way, yes, you are forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex because that would be the only option for marriage.

    And again, what rights would you be taking away from the religious?

  • "...you are forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex..."

    Huh? OK, name the person who I'm forcing you or Perez Hilton to marry. (You can't because no one is forced to do anything)

    "what rights would you be taking away from the religious?"

    Religious people have the right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. You intolerant gay bigots are taking that away by forcing everyone in the country to accept YOUR view on gay marriage.

  • Is quotemining your forte? I said, "in a way" trying to get the point across that if a gay persona wanted to get married, they would have to marry to opposite sex.

    FAIL!!! No one is taking away the right of religious ppl to believe. You dont have to accept "my" view. You marry whoever u want, and gays marry whomever they want. Simple.

  • "in a way"

    Should have read NOT "in a way" because no one is forced to do anything.

    "FAIL!!! No one is taking away the right of gay people to believe. You don't have to accept MY view of "1 man, 1 woman". You can marry whomever you want. Just don't force others to accept YOUR views."

  • "You can marry whomever you want."

    Oh? Just as long as its to someone whom YOU think is appropriate.

    You dont have to accept my view, but dont try to impose YOUR views on marriage on everyone else.

    And lets get real. Straight marriage is not affected by gay marriage.

  • You want to define marriage the way "YOU think is appropriate". How intolerant.

    "You don't have to accept my view, but don't try to impose YOUR views of gay marriage on everyone else."

    "And let's get real. Gay marriage affects everyone when everyone is FORCED to recognize it."

  • "How intolerant."

    How is it intoerant? I am including MORE ppl within the definition. You on the other hand are EXCLUDING ppl.

    There is no imposition.

    And how exactly does the "forced" recognition of gay marriage affect ppl??? They can still believe what they want.

  • "How is it intoerant? [sic]"

    You're trying to force YOUR definition on the whole of America. That is extremely intolerant.

    "And how exactly does non-recognition of gay marriage affect people??? Gay people can still believe what THEY want. Religious people just have different beliefs on gay marriage, so don't go forcing your views on them."

  • By voting on propositions that ADD wording to the definition of marriage to exclude same-sex marriages, YOU are the one that is forcing your definition.

    EVERY law in the US is a "forcing of recognition." The question here is, does it discriminate? One of the protected groups of anti-discrimination laws is sexual orientation. And restricting gay couples from marrying while everyone else has that right IS discrimination. if you add religious reasoning behind it, then we have a church/state issu

  • That's how a democracy works. If the majority wanted illogical gay marriage, so be it. BUT, people are smart and have figured out that if they don't vote 'yes' on these propositions, then intolerant gay bigots like you will force everybody to accept YOUR view.

    Yes, gay marriage laws discriminate because bigots like you want to FORCE me to recognize it against my will. You people are tyrants.

  • Well, too bad we arent a pure democracy where the majority has the monopoly and can discriminate freely. We live in a country that has a constitution, equality as an ideal, and minority protections. Appealing to the majority is a fallacy. The majority being "forced" to recognise the civil rights of minorities is a good thing.

    BTW, your name is a walking fallacy. HA. Appeal to authority.

  • Umm...please tell me you're joking? Your ignorance is simply amazing. You're the first person with whom I've ever spoken who actually believes that the _majority_ has absolutely no rights at all and that the _minority_ gets to rule. Unbelievable.

    BTW, do you even read my comments before posting? I've said it umpteen times--a marriage license (along with a hunting license, drivers license, etc.) is NOT a civil right.

    But go ahead and ignore the facts some more. You're good at that.

  • "I've ever spoken who actually believes that the _majority_ has absolutely no rights at all and that the _minority_ gets to rule."

    WRONG! I never claimed that, so you can stop lying.

    I think it is a civil right. It is unlike a drivers license and hunting license, in which you have to show competence in a skill(driver) and is used for animal protection(latter).

  • What are you talking about??? A little birdy told me that earlier someone said, "Appealing to the majority is a fallacy."

    Who's lying now, Pinocchio? LOL...

    "I think it is a civil right."

    Who cares what _you_ think? Unless you're trying to FORCE your opinion on the rest of us (again).

    "It is unlike a drivers license..."

    Just like gay marriage is unlike normal marriage, in which you have to have a man and a woman.

    (Please keep replying. I love destroying intolerant gay bigots!)

  • "Who's lying now, Pinocchio? LOL..."

    Ummm,....you are. Hm, wasnt that hard. ha. Yes, appealing to the majority to argue for a position is a logical fallacy in reasoning. But that is not to say that the minority rules. That is an inaccurate caricature.

    Well, then who cares what YOU think?

    Who defined what is "normal" marriage? Oh right, homophobic bible beating bigots like you.

  • Man, you really like hearing yourself talk, don't you? Can't even admit you lied either...

    But that's OK, all of the normal people who read this will see your lies.

    Anyway, your small (gay) minority will never be successful in FORCING your intolerant opinions on others. 30 states have already rejected gay marriage (thank God), so you're already losing.

    "Who defined what is "normal" marriage?"

    Normal people defined it. (In other words, NOT religiphobic, bible-burning bigots like you)

  • Nice try in trying to turn around your lie on my but its obvious to anyone that reads this that you are being dishonest and misrepresent my statements.

    6 states have already made it legal. And so have other countries like Canada.

    Who are you to define who "normal people" are? Oh thats right, NOBODY.

  • Nice try in trying to cover up your lie, but it's obvious that you are dishonest and misrepresent statements made by those who disagree with you.

    30 states don't want gay marriage. Maine may overturn it. The overwhelming majority of countries in the world don't want it. You gays need to deal with this...

    Oh yeah, and normal people are the 95% of people who aren't gay.

  • Im not gay you fuken retarded redneck.

    Where did you pull that statistic from? Oh right, out of your ass. And hey! I'm not gay and all my friends arent gay, and yet we believe that gays should have equal rights to marry. LOL. You just defeated yourself. Funny.

  • You're not gay? Yeah, right. Like a straight guy would really be debating this topic in the wee hours of the morning for over a week now.

    Not gay? What a joke...

    Also, the _majority_ of studies place the gay percentage of the population at 3-5%. (You're a disgrace for being such a staunch gay marriage supporter and not even knowing simple facts and doing your homework)

    You're really looking bad now, friend.

  • "Like a straight guy would really be debating this topic in the wee hours of the morning for over a week now."

    I guess that makes you gay! ROTFL!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!

    I know your narrow little mind cant comprehend the idea that some ppl arent selfish and want to help others fight for equality that they themselves enjoy.

    And I'm sorry, but I'm not your friend. I cant be friends with ignorant, idiotic bigots like you.

  • Uh...I don't know if you've noticed this...but I'm the one debating on the side of NORMAL marriage (because I'm a normal person).

    See, it works like this. Gay people (like you) get pumped up debating in favor of gay marriage, while normal people (like me) get pumped up debating in favor of normal marriage. Man, you're dense...

    "narrow little mind"

    "ignorant, idiotic bigots"

    Yep, keep up that tolerance there, my son...

  • Wrong. I'M debating on the side of NORMAL marriage which is between two ppl that love each other. (because i'm a normal person)

    See, it works like this. Homophobes (like you) get pumped up debating against gay marriage, while normal people (like me) get pumped up debating in favor of normal marriage. Man, you're dense...

    "my son"? I think you're confused. LOL.

  • Haha...I love it. You talk about "normal" marriage and then give an abnormal definition. (You gotta love these religiphobes!)

    But if you really are on the side of normal people, I commend you. I forgive you for your past sins.

  • I love it. You talk about "normal" marriage and then give an abnormal definition. (You gotta love these homophobes!)

  • This is even better than I had planned. Please keep it up, man. We'll let the people decide: Does "normal marriage" mean something that 95% of the people do? Or the remaining 5% of people?

  • The normal definition includes 100% of the people. Marriage between two individuals that love each other INCLUDES the 95% of straight marriages AND the 5% of marriages.

    WOW. You just got stomped on. lol.