then you were wrong. Not only are the pedophiles seeking legitimization through "sexual orientation" status, the polygamists and zoophiles are doing likewise after the DOMA and gay marriage SCotUS rulings. SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE
fringe idiots coming out of the woodwork. who cares? their efforts won't get very far. you seem preoccupied with this kind of thing. i don't think i would trust you with dog sitting my beagle puppy.
jim thinks if something is on the internet, it is real. i guess gonz does too. "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." kinda like other regrettable things, like civil rights. golly just look at 'em now. doing their thing all over the place and whatnot. not like my day, when men were men and those boys knew when to just shut up and do what they was told. so now there's a few goat fuckers getting uppity. no one else cares. my state recently made gay marriage legal. not too long before that it made bestiality illegal. personally i couldn't give a fuck about polygamy as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. i would of course be in favor of doing some total cost studies on what it takes to run a court system, and bill all those divorcing for actual costs in sorting their shit out if they can't do it themselves, like adults. i.e. i don't want my tax dollars sorting out some giant fucking mess with three chicks, a dude, and a ladyboy. i'll let jim and dave lobby for their own interests in the younger crowd.
Reprints of actual newspaper articles you can hold in your hand and read that are on the Internet are not real in your world. Hell, if I actually handed you the newspaper to read you would claim it was a figment. You are so predictable. I knew from the outset, when I posted this, that you would take it to some wild extreme. You never fail to come through. Tell me that twenty years ago you foresaw bisexuals and transsexuals being declared a "gender." They started small and became "legit" over time. We shall see what happens with pedophiles, zoophiles, and polygamists. They will take the "civil rights" argument to the same vast extremes that you do.
utah's anti-polygamy laws are TOTALLY FUCKED UP. they can arrest you for cohabitating with a couple different chicks, unmarried. shit, good thing i would never live in utah. i'm sorry jim but how am i taking civil rights 'to extremes?' not seeking to prevent homos from getting married, allowing them to pursue their own happiness? yeah, that's extreme. hey, how about a nice shirtless pic of putin to toss off to? lots of steely man meat for you there. who is more fucked up, the deviant or the person who is unusually fascinated by deviants?
Try your post #5. I predicted this and you dissented. It has now come to pass. Other groups will use the gay marriage rulings to advance their agendas. It is a simple extrapolation.
what about my post #5? you mean where i acknowledged that some freaks would come out of the woodwork? the shit in utah has nothing to do with your 'prediction.' it has everything to do with getting rid of archaic laws. again, you can go to jail for living with someone you aren't married to. why are you so interested in regulating other people's lives?
I want to deregulate their lives and, along with theirs, mine as well. Too many laws are the problem, not the solution.
okay so you are one of those 'no federal in marriage' types who would prefer to see your social preferences encoded into law more locally?
what does the right to pursue happiness include? does it include anything that you personally disagree with?
LOL. i sure left you an easy out. let's try direct questions. should people in your state be able to prevent gays from getting married? would you prefer that they did prevent gays from getting married in your state? do you personally think gays should be prevented from marrying?
I fixed it for you. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. It goes against the very foundation of the institution. "Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is irrelevant and not needed". The federal and state governments ought not to be involved in marriage at all. It used to be that way. The very first laws prohibiting marriage was against certain races from marrying each other. This happened around the time slavery ended. Now, before that we had common law marriage. This is how it ought to still be. But even when you didn't need the government's permission to marry, there was never a "gay marriage". Marriage has always been understood with the procreation principle. In fact, aside from a few fringe, deranged, and isolated occurrences, you cannot find a societal acceptance among any civilizations to gay marriages before the 20th century. Not one. You will find differences in how many spouses you can have but never the same gender. If you call a tail on a dog a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? It will always be 4. Calling a tail a leg, does not make it one. That's what people are trying to do with "gay marriage", they want to call a leg a tail when it goes against what a tail is.
