Bush: Marriage for heterosexuals only

[Amirtallica]

Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

 

[Amirtallica]

Here's an Idea, I want to marry my horse, or my chair. Then we are gonna go out and adopt a child. And I'll send the chair to pick her up from school.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - Instant web polls are not scientifically valid.

Quoting the poll itself:

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

Michael

Geeze Michael, no kidding? I only quoted it because UQ did first. He did it to prove his point, so I did too in order to "disprove" it. I never said the poll was anything more or less than it really is.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

You're the one who's dangerous. Your endless railing against gays in these forums makes me wonder. Dost thou protest too much?

 

[Amirtallica]

I'm not rallying against gays, only that they shouldn't be allowed to marry each other.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

This thread is gay.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please tell us how they are dangerous. I've already completely dismantled your absurd "they'll shoot you with a gun" theory, so what else do you have to offer.

/waits with baited breath

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Here's an Idea, I want to marry my horse, or my chair. Then we are gonna go out and adopt a child. And I'll send the chair to pick her up from school.

Ohh......great example.

Or at least it would be if chair and horses were sentient.....which they're not. Your reasoning skills are pathetic.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

/waits with baited breath

How did you breath become 'baited'?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Fausto1

/waits with baited breath

How did you breath become 'baited'?

I'm sorry, did I go over your pointy little head?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please tell us how they are dangerous. I've already completely dismantled your absurd "they'll shoot you with a gun" theory, so what else do you have to offer.

/waits with baited breath

What? You've never been pumping gas or in the supermarket when some gay guy accosted you and demanded to give you a BJ?

*edited and I thought you were staying out of P & N

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous. Ask yourself this question: What would happen if Adam and Eve were gay?

Please tell us how they are dangerous. I've already completely dismantled your absurd "they'll shoot you with a gun" theory, so what else do you have to offer.

/waits with baited breath

What? You've never been pumping gas or in the supermarket when some gay guy accosted you and demanded to give you a BJ?

*edited and I thought you were staying out of P & N

How is that dangerous? Beer, doritos, and a hummer: one stop shopping.

**I was sucked in by the dearth of intellect in this thread like a bug to a light**

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Here's an Idea, I want to marry my horse, or my chair. Then we are gonna go out and adopt a child. And I'll send the chair to pick her up from school.

Ohh......great example.

Or at least it would be if chair and horses were sentient.....which they're not. Your reasoning skills are pathetic.

So you are the person responsible for setting limits in who and what you can marry right?

 

[Amirtallica]

Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Here's an Idea, I want to marry my horse, or my chair. Then we are gonna go out and adopt a child. And I'll send the chair to pick her up from school.

Ohh......great example.

Or at least it would be if chair and horses were sentient.....which they're not. Your reasoning skills are pathetic.

So you are the person responsible for setting limits in who and what you can marry right?

Your point?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

Easy, hotrod...if you 'turn the tables', what are you going to have to go with that chair?

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.

So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

Easy, hotrod...if you 'turn the tables', what are you going to have to go with that chair?

Man, I can't even understand you.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

Easy, hotrod...if you 'turn the tables', what are you going to have to go with that chair?

Man, I can't even understand you.

Why doesn't that suprise me? Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Here's an Idea, I want to marry my horse, or my chair. Then we are gonna go out and adopt a child. And I'll send the chair to pick her up from school.

Table and chairs? ..my dry sense of humor

 

[Amirtallica]

Ok! That's funny! But I don't get this: "what are you going to have to go with that chair?"

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.

So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.

Christ, I don't even know where to start.

How is a married couple that chooses not to have children different than a gay couple with regard to the continuation of human existence? Why even get married if you're not going to have kids, right? Isn't their relationship just as shallow and meaningless as that of the gay couple according to your logic?

You can drop the table and chair argument too if you don't want to make yourself look any less intelligent than you already have. They're not sentient. They don't love you back, they don't get the groceries. People get married because they love each other and want to solidify that love into (hopefully) permanence. Kids may or may not enter the equation. By your logic, the gay couple and the childless couple are on equal moral footing. It has nothing to do with population control; gays have never been a factor in that nor will they ever be. They have always existed and will always continue to exist. If they were going to snuff out society, they'd have done it by now since humans have been around for quite some time AFAIK.

One other question I have for you. There are already gay people out there in the world, right? They're living their lives, going about their daily business.....some of them are even *gasp* in commited relationships. How does allowing them to marry legally really change anything? I mean, they already exist, they're sure as hell not going to have kids, so in reality you're just putting a different label on a committed relationship between two men or two women. The only real change (and one you interestingly haven't bothered to mention) is that of healthcare benefits and such.

 

[Amirtallica]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.

So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.

Christ, I don't even know where to start.

How is a married couple that chooses not to have children different than a gay couple with regard to the continuation of human existence? Why even get married if you're not going to have kids, right? Isn't their relationship just as shallow and meaningless as that of the gay couple according to your logic?

You can drop the table and chair argument too if you don't want to make yourself look any less intelligent than you already have. They're not sentient. They don't love you back, they don't get the groceries. People get married because they love each other and want to solidify that love into (hopefully) permanence. Kids may or may not enter the equation. By your logic, the gay couple and the childless couple are on equal moral footing. It has nothing to do with population control; gays have never been a factor in that nor will they ever be. They have always existed and will always continue to exist. If they were going to snuff out society, they'd have done it by now since humans have been around for quite some time AFAIK.

One other question I have for you. There are already gay people out there in the world, right? They're living their lives, going about their daily business.....some of them are even *gasp* in commited relationships. How does allowing them to marry legally really change anything? I mean, they already exist, they're sure as hell not going to have kids, so in reality you're just putting a different label on a committed relationship between two men or two women. The only real change (and one you interestingly haven't bothered to mention) is that of healthcare benefits and such.

First you say that gays are marrying for love, then you say healthcare and other benefits associated with marriage. Why don't you marry your father? Don't you love him?
You oppose marriages to animals and objects because of their inability to get the groceries? Animals surely love you back. And how do you know for certain if the two sides of the marriage love each other?
Basically you keep saying they are sentient, animals aren't. A person in a coma is but that doesn't end the marriage so this argument is also inaccurate.
I explain clearly why there is a difference between a couple that chooses not to have children and a gay couple.
Look who's talking about backing an unintelligent argument. Someone that wholeheartedly supports a relationship that if it weren't for noble heteros like myself, would run the human race to extinction.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
Gays are dangerous in the sense that their behaviour endanger the continuation of human existance. Maybe your pathetic minds can't come to this realization but I for one will not tolerate the acceptance of a lifestyle that undermines the very future of mankind, just as I oppose terrorism. Or maybe you are a terrorist? (See how beautifully I turned the tables on you?)

That's it? That's your big intellectual coup de gras? Gays are terrorists?

I'll point out two enormous flaws in your "argument".

1. By your logic, single or married persons who choose not to have children are "endangering the continuation of human existence". I suggest you go picket the nearest outpatient clinic where men might be recieving vasectomies immediately.

2. Perhaps your pathetic mind can't count high enough to see that the world is already overpopulated. Furthermore, homosexuals by definition do not produce offspring (who would presumably be gay). Therefore, the percentage of the population they represent is relatively fixed. Because of this, there will always be plenty of hetero folks around to crank out babies and humankind will keep chugging right along.

Moron.

You failed to realize the depth of the message, just as I suspected.
So you imply that gays are applying a form of population control? Isn't that what terrorists are doing?
Single married people? Hey idiot, I didn't say gays were going to destruct mankind in one generation. If single married people decide not to pass along their gene's it is their decision. As you state yourself, plenty of people will replace them. But when the gay lifestyle takes a constitution that was developed to insure the continutation of human existance and turns it into one solely based on a shallow and meaningless (to the society) relationship, that's when it's fair to say that they are working against the existance of human beings.

So why do gays want to be married if it isn't having children and creating a family? And if so then why shouldn't someone be able to marry a dog that they have sex with?
You're right, I can't count to 6 billion, but it's not an issue of mind power as much as it is time restriction.

Christ, I don't even know where to start.

How is a married couple that chooses not to have children different than a gay couple with regard to the continuation of human existence? Why even get married if you're not going to have kids, right? Isn't their relationship just as shallow and meaningless as that of the gay couple according to your logic?

You can drop the table and chair argument too if you don't want to make yourself look any less intelligent than you already have. They're not sentient. They don't love you back, they don't get the groceries. People get married because they love each other and want to solidify that love into (hopefully) permanence. Kids may or may not enter the equation. By your logic, the gay couple and the childless couple are on equal moral footing. It has nothing to do with population control; gays have never been a factor in that nor will they ever be. They have always existed and will always continue to exist. If they were going to snuff out society, they'd have done it by now since humans have been around for quite some time AFAIK.

One other question I have for you. There are already gay people out there in the world, right? They're living their lives, going about their daily business.....some of them are even *gasp* in commited relationships. How does allowing them to marry legally really change anything? I mean, they already exist, they're sure as hell not going to have kids, so in reality you're just putting a different label on a committed relationship between two men or two women. The only real change (and one you interestingly haven't bothered to mention) is that of healthcare benefits and such.

Just to throw fuel on the fire(on your side and all, but I think Amirtallica is in over his head and am throwing him a bone to keep the debate going)

*cough*
How many kids does Rosie O'Donnell have?