First Gays in South Carolina married this morning

[CID1990]

If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

John
As I understand it no Church is being forced to marry anybody...
Nor is any church being forced to "recognize" anything

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)



its pretty simple really -
The Federal Government and State Governments need to get out of the Marriage business

i say this over and over

nobody listens

then clitz says it

and its harvard truth or some other goofy shit

[Chizzang]

John
As I understand it no Church is being forced to marry anybody...
Nor is any church being forced to "recognize" anything

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)



its pretty simple really -
The Federal Government and State Governments need to get out of the Marriage business

i say this over and over

nobody listens

then clitz says it

and its harvard truth or some other goofy shit

Its probably just your sh!tty attitude and snarky delivery...

[Pwns]

Drove into SC yesterday and expected to see large groups of shirtless gays goose stepping down streets and prepping their gay ray for mass gayification. I'm disappointed.

Looks like us straight guys are going to have to continue to put up with women in our relationships.

[kalm]

i say this over and over

nobody listens

then clitz says it

and its harvard truth or some other goofy shit

Its probably just your sh!tty attitude and snarky delivery...

You both need to simmer the fuck down. I was the one who trolled JSO and I've been saying the same thing for years now.

Looks like I got a triple on!

[Ibanez]

Drove into SC yesterday and expected to see large groups of shirtless gays goose stepping down streets and prepping their gay ray for mass gayification. I'm disappointed.

Looks like us straight guys are going to have to continue to put up with women in our relationships.

Yup, so far there have been no reports of gay bandits, stalking people and buggering them.

[dbackjon]

Drove into SC yesterday and expected to see large groups of shirtless gays goose stepping down streets and prepping their gay ray for mass gayification. I'm disappointed.

Looks like us straight guys are going to have to continue to put up with women in our relationships.

that is phase two.

[CID1990]

Its probably just your sh!tty attitude and snarky delivery...

You both need to simmer the **** down. I was the one who trolled JSO and I've been saying the same thing for years now.

Looks like I got a triple on!

go back and show us where you have said government shouldnt be involved in ANYTHING much less marriage

you said for years so go back oh, two years and start looking there for your libertarian views on marriage

we'll wait here with the crickets for your reply

[kalm]

You both need to simmer the **** down. I was the one who trolled JSO and I've been saying the same thing for years now.

Looks like I got a triple on!

go back and show us where you have said government shouldnt be involved in ANYTHING much less marriage

you said for years so go back oh, two years and start looking there for your libertarian views on marriage

we'll wait here with the crickets for your reply

Ummmmm…no.


(But I will suggest that since you're erection for me has lasted more than 4 hours…it's time to see a doctor )

[CID1990]

go back and show us where you have said government shouldnt be involved in ANYTHING much less marriage

you said for years so go back oh, two years and start looking there for your libertarian views on marriage

we'll wait here with the crickets for your reply

Ummmmm…no.


(But I will suggest that since you're erection for me has lasted more than 4 hours…it's time to see a doctor )

You have NEVER said government should be out of the marriage business. Definitely not for the several years you put out there.

Is this the new klam morph? retroactively changing your positions?

some people call that lying

Ill just call it "full of shit"

[kalm]

Ummmmm…no.


(But I will suggest that since you're erection for me has lasted more than 4 hours…it's time to see a doctor )

You have NEVER said government should be out of the marriage business. Definitely not for the several years you put out there.

Is this the new klam morph? retroactively changing your positions?

some people call that lying

Ill just call it "full of shit"

Of course you will. It helps the world make sense to you.

Under the current laws, gay marriage is a civil rights issue. In a perfect world, it should be up to each church on who they marry and who they don't. They state shouldn't be allowed to tell churches what to do, but there should be no legal advantages granted by the government either.

I've held these positions for a number of years.

Look it up, Snookins!

[CID1990]

You got called on bullshit. You have never claimed that government should not be involved in marriage. I'm so confident that I am correct that I wont bother to try to prove the negative.

You made the claim. YOUprove me wrong or STFU

[kalm]

You got called on bullshit. You have never claimed that government should not be involved in marriage. I'm so confident that I am correct that I wont bother to try to prove the negative.

You made the claim. YOUprove me wrong or STFU

Wow, such anger...

I'll stand by my recollection of positions I've held in the past versus yours. If you don't like that, feed the obsession and go do some research, stalker.

[CID1990]

You got called on bullshit. You have never claimed that government should not be involved in marriage. I'm so confident that I am correct that I wont bother to try to prove the negative.

You made the claim. YOUprove me wrong or STFU

Wow, such anger...

I'll stand by my recollection of positions I've held in the past versus yours. If you don't like that, feed the obsession and go do some research, stalker.

I dont have to research anything. You got caught lying.

Thats what happens when you waffle back and forth between positions for the sake of argument. You cant keep up with your own BS.

All you have to do is link, Klam.... prove me wrong

[kalm]

Wow, such anger...

I'll stand by my recollection of positions I've held in the past versus yours. If you don't like that, feed the obsession and go do some research, stalker.

I dont have to research anything. You got caught lying.

Thats what happens when you waffle back and forth between positions for the sake of argument. You cant keep up with your own BS.

All you have to do is link, Klam.... prove me wrong

JFC you're annoying. Here's one from 2012...

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ch#p645528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's several more and probably even better examples...want me to keep going or are you ok now with shutting the fuck up?

[clenz]

Drove into SC yesterday and expected to see large groups of shirtless gays goose stepping down streets and prepping their gay ray for mass gayification. I'm disappointed.

Looks like us straight guys are going to have to continue to put up with women in our relationships.

that is phase two.

How long does that take to kick in?

Iowa has allowed and sex marriage for over a half decade now... I think... And nothing has changed... Nothing.... Literally nothing.

No gay men sucking each other off in public. No lesbians each other out in public. No children being forced into being gay. No change in divorce rate. No one being forced to cheat by gays.


Hell, there has been so little change i don't even know when it was allowed because that little changed.

[CID1990]

I dont have to research anything. You got caught lying.

Thats what happens when you waffle back and forth between positions for the sake of argument. You cant keep up with your own BS.

All you have to do is link, Klam.... prove me wrong

JFC you're annoying. Here's one from 2012...

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ch#p645528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's several more and probably even better examples...want me to keep going or are you ok now with shutting the **** up?

lol

made you go back and link

[JohnStOnge]

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)

This is not what's going on. The concept of "civil union" was offered in order to allow for the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages." That was not considered acceptable.

And the reason is that the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages" is not what the "normalization of homosexuality" people are/were after. What they're after is to institutionalize the idea that homosexuality is normal and that the world should view a homosexual as though there is nothing wrong with them.

The problem is that that's a lie. There IS something wrong with a homosexual. They have a dysfunctional sexual orientation. They're sick. And only a sick culture would be even contemplating the concept of "homosexual marriage" much less actually implementing it.

[kalm]

JFC you're annoying. Here's one from 2012...



http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ch#p645528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's several more and probably even better examples...want me to keep going or are you ok now with shutting the **** up?

lol

made you go back and link

[Ibanez]

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)

This is not what's going on. The concept of "civil union" was offered in order to allow for the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages." That was not considered acceptable.

And the reason is that the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages" is not what the "normalization of homosexuality" people are/were after. What they're after is to institutionalize the idea that homosexuality is normal and that the world should view a homosexual as though there is nothing wrong with them.

The problem is that that's a lie. There IS something wrong with a homosexual. They have a dysfunctional sexual orientation. They're sick. And only a sick culture would be even contemplating the concept of "homosexual marriage" much less actually implementing it.

Libertarians don't care. You sir, are no libertarian.

[kalm]

This is not what's going on. The concept of "civil union" was offered in order to allow for the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages." That was not considered acceptable.

And the reason is that the "Tax reasons and other legal advantages" is not what the "normalization of homosexuality" people are/were after. What they're after is to institutionalize the idea that homosexuality is normal and that the world should view a homosexual as though there is nothing wrong with them.

The problem is that that's a lie. There IS something wrong with a homosexual. They have a dysfunctional sexual orientation. They're sick. And only a sick culture would be even contemplating the concept of "homosexual marriage" much less actually implementing it.

Libertarians don't care. You sir, are no libertarian.

Neither do people who are secure in their sexuality.

[CID1990]

lol

made you go back and link

[CID1990]

Effing new tapatalk update

[Chizzang]

what is this "taptalk" crap I see all over the place...
usually it appears after an egregious series of misspellings and poor punctuation

[Ibanez]

what is this "taptalk" crap I see all over the place...
usually it appears after an egregious series of misspellings and poor punctuation

It's an app. You know what an app is?

[kalm]

BOOYAH!!! I WIN!!!