|
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. |
Amazes me that people can completely distrust one organization that wants control over their lives and behaviour (government) but, simultaneously, fully trusts another organization that wants the same thing (their Church).
|
Good, now gays are also officially allowed to maim and kill for their Fatherland. Was about time.
|
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Currently if you are Catholic getting married is religiously different than it you where Mormon or Baptist, even more so if you are Muslim, Jewish or Orthodox. Yet they are the same legally.
If my religious beliefs hold to the ideal that gay men can join is a holy union in the presents of my lord. It should be reconciled as such, a religious marriage and not just a legal one.
The "slippery slope" idea is just a way to tie a not so harmful or scary thing to something more scary in hopes people will fear the original idea more than before.
like having protected sex before marriage with one person, Right wing conservatives would say "sex before marriage has increased risk of contracting HIV or AIDS!"
We all fear AIDS and HIV so we should fear protected sex before marriage too right?
Truly do we believe that some how marriage will protect you from HIV? which is silly, if we have a monogamous relationship married or not.
It is just a fear tactic.
|
On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
|
On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
|
On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
|
You guys do realize there are those who feel that homosexuals in the military are a bad idea and have nothing to do with any church, right?
I just happen to believe that women should not be allowed in the military due to the distractions they could pose. When applying that logic to gay men I have to be consistent.
I also feel that until I see genetic proof of homosexuality I don't have to accept the fact that people naturally have different sexual orientations, in the same way the I feel that one is not born a pedophile or necrophiliac.
Doesn't make me a biggot, I don't care how someone gets off or what they do in the bedroom (or in public for that matter), I just wish the federal government would take away the marriage incentives so we would never have to hear about it again.
|
On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
Is this what you believe ?
Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down
|
On September 21 2011 02:10 Infleto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage. let us view your point with other faces in place of gays. " I bevel black men and wight white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. " " I bevel the people of Islam and us Jews should marry. It is against the law set down my my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. " All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be: "I bevel only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church" Is this what you bevel
You mean 'believe'?
I believe who gives a shit what someone else thinks? If I was gay and wanted to get married, I would simply require the State to give my gay marriage the same legal benefits as a straight marriage and THAT'S IT. No further. I would not demand an edict that forces my local Church to ratify my marriage. I don't need their blessing and I sure as shit wouldn't want it, the way they've treated me these many long years. Demanding so would be merely vindictive.
|
On September 21 2011 02:10 Infleto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage. let us view your point with other faces in place of gays. " I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. " " I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. " All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be: "I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church" Is this what you believe ? Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down
Is it against the law?
|
A great victory i would say.
|
about time it was repealed.. I mean it was embarrassing having a law so blatantly discriminatory in the law books in the year 2011..
a good step in the right direction, I'm actually pleasantly surprised this actually happened.
|
On September 21 2011 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:10 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage. let us view your point with other faces in place of gays. " I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. " " I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. " All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be: "I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church" Is this what you believe ? Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down Is it against the law?
A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
The Governor of Louisiana called for the dismissal of him.
|
On September 21 2011 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:10 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage. let us view your point with other faces in place of gays. " I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. " " I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. " All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be: "I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church" Is this what you believe ? Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down Is it against the law?
Good point. It isn't. They can decline to marry whoever they hell they want, since they're a private entity. It's well within their right to refuse to marry an interracial couple, a gay couple, a couple of any other religious denomination or whoever, for whatever reasons (e.g. a convicted sex offender).
The state, however, should not. They are a public entity, and should marry any two consenting adults who want to get married. You don't need the Church's blessing for your marriage, and I have to wonder why someone who gets regularly discriminated by them would want it. I just got married last week and the absolute last place on earth either of us wanted to, or should have, got married was in a Church. Neither of us are Christian, so why on earth would we want to get married in a Church by a Priest?
|
On September 21 2011 02:38 Infleto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 21 2011 02:10 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:59 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:52 Infleto wrote:On September 21 2011 01:41 Bibdy wrote:On September 21 2011 01:37 Infleto wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things. There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman". Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't? I mean... come on... On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote:
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion. What has marriage to do with anything? I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway... That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is. Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so. If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another? None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously) Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage. let us view your point with other faces in place of gays. " I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. " " I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. " All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be: "I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church" Is this what you believe ? Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down Is it against the law? A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. The Governor of Louisiana called for the dismissal of him.
Justice of Peace = state though. Not a church or synagogue like you mentioned.
|
We're getting there as a race. Hopefully hundred years forward we will look at shit like this and laugh at how dumb we were
|
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
|
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote:
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
|
It's about time. Who cares if someone is gay/bi/animal lover etc etc. It doesnt effect other peoples lives. The only people that I know of that are against gays or policies like this are bible busters and/or hardcore conservatives that still believe in fairy tales that are over 2,000 years on. Move on people.
|
Hell, it's about time.
As an American, there's a lot I'm proud about, and a lot I'm embarrassed about.
This makes me one tiny bit prouder to be an American.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
