I’ll quit saying NIGGER when liberals quit calling it GAY MARRIAGE

<!–more–lhcrewsThe debate about whether gays should be able to marry requires first that the very meaning of the term “marriage” be redefined. It has for centuries in our country been defined as a union between a man and a wife. “Gay Marriage” supporters want the term re-defined to mean a union between two persons.  That is as nonsensical as me saying from now on “NIGGER”* means what I say it means: It no longer has any negative connotation, and it is now perfectly acceptable to use it in a friendly manner towards all my black friends and acquaintances, and all those with whom I come in contact.  It is nonsensical for me make that argument. But it is equally nonsensical to argue that “marriage” means a union between two women or men.  What proponents of “gay marriage” really want is to force us to redefine the term “marriage” so as to include the union of two of the same sex.

Supporters of “gay marriage” then build upon that nonsensical argument by claiming that the rights of homosexuals to “equal protection under the laws” will be violated unless the word is redefined and they too are allowed to “marry” one another.  The problem with that argument is that gays and lesbians have the same right as heterosexuals already–they have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex who is of age and not closely related.  Of course, proponents of “gay marriage” argue that they cannot marry “the one they love” because their loved one is not “of the opposite sex.” Yeah, well, so? I can’t be a Martian, either, because I’m an Earthling. My dog isn’t a cat.  My car isn’t a tree.  And heterosexuals don’t have carte blanche to marry “the one they love” if that includes their siblings, parents or underage children. 

Since marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, by very definition two persons of the same sex can never marry.  Unless the courts or the legislature change the definition of “marriage.”  And arguing for  the courts or the legislature to change the definition of a word is as absurd as me arguing that the courts or the legislature change the definition of “nigger.” Imagine: “Come on, Your Honor, it is such a cute little word–even though it came to have such a hateful meaning.  Change its meaning, just for me and my friends, so we can use it without insulting millions of people, will ya please?”    

It may appear as though I am being absurd. But part of the rationale of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to claim that barring homosexuals from marrying was based upon the claim that homosexuals were denied equal protection of the law, and “civil unions”–a form of “separate but equal”–was not good enough.  As most know, “separate but equal” goes back to days when the Supreme Court allowed whites to mistreat blacks by keeping them separate.  Separate but equal toilets, sinks, even separate schools.  The Supreme Court finally ruled that separate was not good enough, blacks could not be discriminated against, period.  Of course, that was a very good and just result. But to argue from those decisions that the rationale applies to homosexual marriage skips the absurd leap that the very term must be first be re-defined. 

Concerning “gay marriage”, until the court first accepted the change of the very definition of the term marriage to mean a union of two people, the “separate but equal” argument was meaningless. For if “marriage” means a union of a man and a wife a civil union can never be compared to a marriage. It would be like comparing apples and oranges. If the definition of “marriage” were not changed first, the proper determination to be made in Iowa would be for the court to compare how homosexuals are treated according to laws governing civil unions with how heterosexuals are treated in civil unions.  Only then, if homosexuals are treated disparately, could the court then go on to analyze whether there was a legally recognizable reason for the different treatment. 

Instead, to create the appearance of “discrimination,” the definition of “marriage” was first changed, granting homosexuals greater rights than the law currently extend to heterosexuals regarding marriage:  The current law equally forbade heterosexuals and  homosexuals from marrying a person of the same sex.

The comparison of the “gay marriage” issue with the “separate but equal” analysis regarding the treatment of blacks does not withstand scrutiny, because homosexuals are arguing for greater rights than those extended to heterosexuals.   Blacks were arguing for equal access to the same high schools.  If blacks had argued, “Whites have better high schools, so give us free college educations”, the proper and sane rebuttal would have been “Sorry, whites don’t get free college education, so neither do you.”  Or if blacks argued that whites have separate water fountains and toilets, then blacks want those rights plus the right to free beer and wine when they eat in restaurants because they re-defined the meaning of “drinking.”  No sane person would accept as a reason to extend such rights: “The sign said ‘Drinking for Whites only’ and beer and wine is for drinking too, so give us these extra rights!”  The arguments would not be accepted to first re-define “high school education” to mean “college education” for blacks, or “drinking” to mean not just water from a faucet but also beer and wine for blacks. 

Under an “Equal Protection” analysis, blacks should be entitled to the same rights as whites, not extra rights (leaving aside the issue of “Affirmative Action”). Likewise, homosexuals should not be entitled to greater rights than heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals who are not married have no greater rights than homosexuals in Iowa, so the Iowa court just reached out willy-nilly and changed the definition of marriage in order to make it seem like homosexuals were discriminated against.  

Likewise, in Virginia, unmarried heterosexuals have no greater rights than homosexuals. Virginia does not recognize a civil union or a “common law marriage.”  So there is no “discrimination” against homosexuals here, either. Following the Iowa court’s “logic,” the very most that could be argued for in Virginia is that gays and heterosexuals who do not wish to marry should be given the right to form a civil union. But again that is arguing for extra rights, not “equal rights.” 

Instead of redefining a word that has been recognized for centuries, the issue of whether the law should formally recognize homosexual relationships should be addressed head on.  There is no “constitutional right” to re-define and change the meaning of a word. Therefore, the remedy to grant a formal recognition of homosexual relationships is to change the law. If enough citizens want to recognize an offical union between homosexuals, they should vote to change the law. 

And they should make up a new word. Just call it something different. Hell, make up a word.  Civil Union is already out there, but apparently that is not good enough, so just make something up. Don’t try to redefine night to mean day, or up down.  Don’t try to re-define “marriage” to suit your fancy. Just be intellectually honest.  Quit playing word games by first re-defining “marriage” to invent “discrimination” that is not there.  Yes, I oppose “gay marriage.” Duh. But I am also opposed to illogical arguments by activist judges.

*No, I am not a racist. I don’t use the word nigger. (Maybe because I am not a rapper?)  But I believe it is childish to use “the N word” to describe a word that we all know exists.  Just as we Christians cannot force heathens to refrain from “using the Lord’s name in vain” because this is a free country, I’m free to use the word nigger. Anyone so sensitive that they can’t handle that for me to make a point should just learn to deal with their own problems.  I think what we all deplore is the use of the word nigger to denigrate people, and an entire race of people. I mean no disrespect by the word, I am merely using it to make my point.  Please don’t faint Aunt PittyPats of the world.

41 responses to “I’ll quit saying NIGGER when liberals quit calling it GAY MARRIAGE

  1. I wanted to thank you today for paying the Gay Community’s federal taxes.

    You will need to continue paying them until ALL are EQUAL in U.S. Law.

    [equality tax revolt]

  2. hey asshat, I hope they lock you up for protesting on Post Office property…..u are a cancer on the ass of America!

  3. Thanks for sharing your comments on my blog. I hope you don’t take this as “negative” but what you say about queers wanting “equality” applies equally to pedophiles, polygamy, incestuous relationships, and practitioners of beastiality.

    Why should you be able to marry “Bob” when some necrophiliac can’t “marry” the corpse of his dreams? How is your “love” somehow more deserving of respect than some pervert who just happens to be attracted to corpses? When you lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong, you lose the abilility to distinguish amongst varying degrees of perverts. Who then are you “to judge” those who just happen to say that murder or rape is something they “were born”
    wanting to do? Or even to those who beat up homosexuals “because they were born that way”–from their earliest recollections, they just wanted to beat up homos. Don’t hate, let them have their little fun. After all, they were born that way…

    • That is the dumbest rationality for being anti-gay I have ever head. Being homosexual involves two willing and able participants. Being involved in pedophilia is COMPLETELY different, as it involves an adult taking advantage of a child for sexual purposes, said child being emotionally incapable of making an informed decision about sex of ANY kind. Same with bestiality. And incest is illegal because it can cause physical deformities in any unborn child who might be the product of such a relationship. None of this can be said about two homosexuals who wish to be together.

  4. I implore you to actually meet someone who is homosexual and just spend some time getting to know them. Your arguments fall apart in so many ways with the hyperbole you use and the irrational nonsensical rants you go on. How is comparing necrophilia to marrying the person you share your life with not hyperbole?

  5. I implore you to actually meet someone who is a necrofiliac or a pedophile or incestuous. You think THEY believe that they are perverts? They had a mommy and a daddy, too. And you want to discriminate against them? See, to even ask the question shows that you DO discriminate, and you don’t call yourself names or beat yourself up about it. You think it is only natural that you condemn them. That. Is. EXACTLY. How I feel about queers. I know some queers, what is your point? That just because somebody does something utterly disgusting and un-natural that I should accept them for who they are? When you don’t do the same for pedophiles and necrophiles? I know, you will just go away because you can’t answer this comment.

    • Did I miss the “law” against homosexuality? There are “all-inclusive” laws regarding pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and incest. I don’t judge anyone, but one day, your “god” will judge you.

  6. Nicklaus Michael (Cold)

    First off gays already have enough “SPECIAL” rights as is… they scream rant and rave we want equal rights … well you do have equal rights infact its us heterosexuals that should be out protesting for more rights… cause as I see it minority (GAYS, BLACKS) etc have more rights then us white ppl.. but you know what you dont see us out there talking shit bitchin and moaning about it.. shit I dont even see black ppl doing it gays want more rights than all of us cause they think they are special… infact if I was to walk down the street and some gay guy I didnt even know starts talking shit… and I end up whooping his ass not knowing he is gay… it still gets punished as assualt and a hate crime… isnt that fucked up black ppl and white ppl both whoop on each other all the time and you dont hear them screaming omg its because Im black that he started fighting me… gays are just tryin to be queens to making a scene.. they even act more feminine than women.. really weird…. Im not racists in any manner but we all have the same rights and to deface marriage that has been around for centuries just for some stupid cause of not being able to marry the same sex is petite and stupid … and as long as there is a breath in me I will fight it… I agree with what John Doe says too… if we have to give u that right then we have to start giving it to all sexualities including but limited too necrophiliacs … incest familys wanting to marry their sister or brothers… this is ridiculous and as a ppl we shouldnt allow anymore rights go out to make one group more special than the other… and we should definitely not allow the word MARRIAGE which already has problems these days be defiled by such non sense as to change its meaning from its rooted start…the N word may be acceptable by some but is no where close to being a positive word to be used unlike marriage which was always meant to mean something beautiful… to change its meaning is like stomping on a rose cause its too beautiful in the glistening in the morning sun…

  7. Thanks for commenting Nickalaus. The first thing is to get angry. The next is to turn that anger into useful action. Vote. Support good candidates. Speak up!

  8. Nicklaus Michael (Cold)

    I would also like to add that I dont hate the person I hate their actions… or even dislike them for that matter… I have friends that are gay.. and even tho their actions are not of what I do or would partake in .. even them say these gays that are tryin to defile marriages name is wrong… gives something for everyone to think about.. cause not all gays are for this either…some actually respect the fact they have equal rights already and that the process of marriage started and should always be between a man and a woman…anyways thats all I have to say thanx John Doe

  9. I don’t hate gays, thieves, burglars, or any other law breakers, or those who indulge in immoral activities. I’ve broken laws. I’ve acted immorally. The difference is when I do I feel terrible, am ashamed, and try to never do it again. Some gays and their supporters are flaunting what they do and trying to justify it. THAT’S what I hate.

  10. That’s the whole point…they (gays) want SSSOOOOOO badly to be noticed, they protest and party when something goes either way. They are not happy just being themselves, they must play that game and show off to just how cool they ain’t.

    And, I feel discriminated against as the girl I love, I cannot marry for she is married to someone else. How is that right? Maybe I should protest on their front porch.

  11. He he. Good points Frankie.

    p.s. Where you been?

  12. the point of redefining gay marriage is to change its meaning to service members of a society that does not completely ignore-and, hence, inherently delegitimize-love relationships between two persons of the same sex.

    your analogy doesn’t even begin to make sense, as the two examples don’t reflect one another in the least. consider that the constitutive interpretations of a word wholly lacks positive or negative connotations, in contrast to the societal implications of a (once) derogatory word.

    in addition, a marriage-unlike the word nigger-is an institution attached to a civil right and not merely a word, a fact lending to my inability to declare myself married, as do kids who “go steady” or any person who chooses to say “sup nigga/(nigger).”

    those crazy gays call the “change” in meaning a right for a reason, as they consider the present confines of the secular union to be the withholding of one.

    someone obviously missed speech and debate practice, in addition to that mecca of intellectual journeys that a lucky few like to call “logical thinking.”

    i look forward to a logical reply, but i suspect you blame the liberal media for my thought process.

  13. Huh. Funny, I was thinking that your words were rambling, and nearly incoherent. But I will attempt to engage in conversation.

    First, I agree 100%, marriage is an institution. I used the word nigger for shock value. My point was not that nigger and marriage are equal institutions. I was not “making an analogy,” I was making a point. “Nigger” is a word with a definite meaning, albeit a negative connotation. And it would be as absurd for me to try to force my new meaning of it onto the world as it is for gays to force their definition of “marriage” onto the world. My point was that those favoring SSM were attempting to change the very meaning of the word, to change the very meaning of the institution, as you called it.

    Right now, gays have the same right to marry as anybody else. Everybody has the same right to marry ONE person of the OPPOSITE sex who is COMPETENT and not too CLOSELY RELATED. But queers want extra rights. They want to change the very meaning of the institution to suit their fancy.

    Where does it end? 2 men and a woman want to marry. 3 women, a man, a dog and a tree want to marry. If we are going to draw lines, to define what a marriage is and isn’t, then some will be unhappy. If we aren’t, then anything goes. You can’t say that SSM is fine but polygamy isn’t. Or that multiple men and women marrying isn’t. But that is beside my point. If you have two men and a woman, or two men, it by definition isn’t “marriage.” Just as by definition 2+2 does not equal 9.

    But this isn’t about civil rights. Queers are left alone. They can do whatever they want. But it isn’t enough. They want to force society to accept them and to believe that they are normal, and moral, and acceptable in every way. And ultimately they want to punish any who think differently. Already in Canada and some country in Europe it is a crime of “hate-speech” to verbally condemn homosexual behavior. That is their goal, make no mistake about it.

    • considering you weren’t making an analogy-hence, not comparing the two processes… not even partially-were you just fallaciously playing w/ words?
      rambling(adj.)-1.) inconsequential 2.) john doe’s post(see above).

      so you must also believe that, when “free” blacks became 5/5-as opposed to 3/5-of a “citizen” in the united states via civil war amendments(also, in part, a fight for civil rights for blacks), the word was dangerously tainted, although, in both cases, a simple and clear goal is being pursued: citizenship for blacks, marriage for gay couples. in the years following the adoption of the 13th/14th amendments-which forced a new meaning on the word “citizen”-did animals start voting with their hoofs? were rocks included in the census?

      nice to know your horrible argument against gay marriage hinges on polygamists(who commonly violate the freedoms of young girls), incest(abuse of relatives and willful threats to unborn infants’ health is illegal; unlike gay marriage, rights for incestuous couples would embarrass our nation), and animals(need i say more).

      in response to your 1000+ years of stability riffraff, should it matter how long “marriage” or “citizen” are defined a particular way? (after all, the earth isn’t flat. or should we have pretended so, to protect… ppl. like yourself?). btw, your summary of hate crime legislation elsewhere was grossly generalized, and-unlike the meanings of words-the fact that 2+2=4 will never change due to its use in fields of science and math. but it’s interesting to hear you conflate social institutions and science.

  14. Hey John, saw a bumper sticker up in Manassas the other day that read (written over a rainbow background…of course)…MARRY WHATEVER YOU WANT !

    Amazing !

  15. Under equal protection, any two citizens would have the right to get married. Any limitation based on age, gender, race, etc. is not equal protection under the law, and therefore unconstitutional. The fact that “gay” marriage is prohibited at all is a huge violation of the principles this country was founded upon.

    Never does this imply pedophiles, polygamy, incestuous relationships, and practitioners of bestiality have these same protections, here is why…

    First, marriage is a contract, and anyone under 18 is a minor, and therefore does not have the guaranteed right to enter a contract. While some states allow marriage younger than 18, it is not a protected right. Yes, this is a form of age discrimination, but it is not unconstitutional. The constitution was not written to give all rights to children as adults, and for good reason. Therefore, equal protection does not apply to pedophiles and the like, as your flawed logic seems to imply.

    Second, marriage under equal protection is between two people. While race, religion, etc., are protected classes, QUANTITY is not. One can not argue that the numbers greater than 2 are being discriminated against when limiting marriage to two persons.

    Third, animals are not citizens, and therefore cannot enter into the contract of marriage, so you bestiality argument is just plain stupid. Nowhere ever are animals given constitutional rights as humans. There are plenty of laws regarding humane treatment of animals, but this hardly gives them legal rights. Is this some fear of yours, that if normal gay citizens are allowed to get married, that now you get to marry your dog? You really believe this?

    Lastly, it is a known scientific fact that incestuous relationships are a clear and direct hazard to the health of any offspring, and therefore a risk and burden to society in general. It is absurd to think equal protection would guarantee one’s right to participate in activities that carry proven huge risks of creating genetically damaged children.

    Your attitude sucks, your logic sucks, and your complete disregard for equal protection under the law as described in the constitution is pathetic and un-American. I hope you change your beliefs for the better. Cheers.

  16. Oh, look, somebody who thinks he is a lawyer. Cute.

    First, the main argument that fags and fag lovers make is “fundamental fairness.” Funny then how quick they turn around and throw other perverts under the bus. Queers whiiiiine, with a high nasally voice and a limp wrist: It’s just not fair that queers can’t marry. But look how quickly “logic boy” throws all the other perverts under the bus. Kids can’t enter a contract he/she says. Those desiring to enter polygamous marriage are just out of luck. And close blood relatives might have sick kids. All of those sickos want the same “rights” as do faggots. It’s just not FAIR to give special rights to faggots and then to not include any other sicko arrangement desired out there. So just fuck all those faggots out there who argue about fairness–it is just a posture adopted to trick women and weak-thinking men into thinking that the “fair” thing to do is to allow queers to marry.

    But let’s delve into your “logic” point by point: it is a known scientific fact that incestuous relationships are a clear and direct hazard to the health of any offspring, and therefore a risk and burden to society in general. It is absurd to think equal protection would guarantee one’s right to participate in activities that carry proven huge risks of creating genetically damaged children.” Ha. It is a known scientific fact that the behavior that faggots engage in increases their risks of disease (HIV, AIDS, and STDs and infections). We can’t allow and sanction all that risky behavior and allow them to get AIDS and be a burden on society. The risk that homos have is a “huge” increase in the chance that they have/will get such diseases. Close blood relatives, on the other hand, can eliminate their risk entirely by getting fixed. Come on, you don’t want to be “unfair” by not allowing adult children marry their parents or siblings, DO YOU?

  17. Continued… Your argument: “Under equal protection, any two citizens would have the right to get married. Any limitation based on age, gender, race, etc. is not equal protection under the law, and therefore unconstitutional. The fact that “gay” marriage is prohibited at all is a huge violation of the principles this country was founded upon.” Bullshit. Fags have the same right to marry as anyone else. They have the right to marry a non-married person of the opposite sex who is old enough and not closely related by blood. In fact, faggots don’t wish to exercise that right. They want to in fact get special rights that nobody else has. They want the very definition of marriage to be changed to mean something that it does not and never has meant so as to include same sex partners.

    Here you go playing lawyer again: “First, marriage is a contract, and anyone under 18 is a minor, and therefore does not have the guaranteed right to enter a contract. While some states allow marriage younger than 18, it is not a protected right. Yes, this is a form of age discrimination, but it is not unconstitutional. The constitution was not written to give all rights to children as adults, and for good reason. Therefore, equal protection does not apply to pedophiles and the like, as your flawed logic seems to imply.”

    First, you are ignorant of the law. Many states (ALL?) allow children under the age of 18 to marry. There goes your ignorant “marriage is a contract” bullshit right out the window. But let’s just assume that you are correct, that nobody under 18 can legally enter a wedding contract. Why can’t they whiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiine about the unfairness of allowing faggots to marry whilst they cannot!? 17 year olds can be fully emancipated and fight and die for their country.

  18. cont’d: “Third, animals are not citizens, and therefore cannot enter into the contract of marriage, so you bestiality argument is just plain stupid [MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONTRACT. YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN MARRIAGE CONTRACT? NONE EXIST. MAYBE ANIMALS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT HUMANS DO, SO UNDER YOUR LAME LOGIC, IF THEY WANT TO MARRY DONKEYS AND ASSES, WE SHOULD ALLOW THEM.]. Nowhere ever are animals given constitutional rights as humans. There are plenty of laws regarding humane treatment of animals, but this hardly gives them legal rights. Is this some fear of yours, that if normal gay citizens are allowed to get married, that now you get to marry your dog? You really believe this? [I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO DEPTH TO WHICH SOME PERVERT SOME WHERE IS NOT WILLING TO GO. NOT ONLY DO I BELIEVE THAT, I KNOW IT.]”

    YOUR MORONIC RANT GOES ON: “Second, marriage under equal protection is between two people. While race, religion, etc., are protected classes, QUANTITY is not. One can not argue that the numbers greater than 2 are being discriminated against when limiting marriage to two persons.” WHAT BULLSHIT. YOU ARE NOW ARGUING SEMANTICS. BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD A MARRIAGE TO BE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE–YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX–YOU THEN CLAIM THAT THEREFORE POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES ARE THEREFORE FINE TO PROHIBIT. THAT IS PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT. IF WE ARE FORCED TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE OUT OF “FAIRNESS” THEN WE CANNOT LOGICALLY BE STOPPED FROM BEING FORCED TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION TO ALLOW POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES. IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAW, AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU DO NOT, YOU WOULD KNOW ABOUT “PRECEDENT.” THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON TO ALLOW FAGGOTS TO MARRY BUT NOT POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES.

  19. I like the way you think. America will be doomed for eternity unless it ditches all this gay crap

  20. You’re right on. America will be doomed for eternity unless it drops all this gay crap

  21. Game over! You lose! Check this out, #2 to be specific! Lol

    http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=marriage

  22. Captain John Doe

    Soooooo, when they change the definition of rape to mean what it does in Saudi Arabia, you are fine with that, Liz? You moron

  23. Here’s the rule:
    A dead body cannot consent to a marriage contract, so people of legal and consenting age can’t marry them
    An animal cannot consent to a marriage contract, so people of legal and consenting age can’t marry them
    A child cannot consent to a marriage contract, so people of legal and consenting age can’t marry them

    Wanting to marry a person has no effect on anyone else but the two consenting parties–it’s all about preference. I pay my taxes just as much as you do, and I function in society just as you do, so I ought to be able to enjoy all of the benefits you get for being “heteronormative”. To pick and chose how people can pursue their own happiness (which would have, otherwise, no effect on the rest of the world) is to undermine the Constitution and all of the hopes and mantras drafted up in the Declaration of Independence.
    Did you guys forget that “Separate but Equal” was a system of legislation that was deemed unconstitutional in the 14th Amendment? Or are we just arbitrarily picking and choosing what is “good” and “bad” and changing the Constitution’s meaning to fit those preconceived notions?

  24. For the record, marriage IS a contract. Whether it be something you sign on paper or socially agree to, the parties need to come to an agreement and CONSENT to the union we call “marriage”. Get off the slippery slope, people, and realize that making something “more fair” is EXACTLY the attitude we need to accept: our society changes over time, and minorities no longer want to be seen as “second class citizens” who have to change their entire lifestyles just to suit the people who aren’t being fair anyway.
    To understand that “marriage” is a right given to heterosexuals and should, then, be given to homosexuals (and transexuals and bisexuals, pansexuals–whatever the situation may be!) is not a hard concept to grasp. I don’t care at ALL for this exclusive definition of “marriage” as a Christian invention, or as a union between a cis-gendered males and females. There are people out there, minority or not, who don’t fit into that. They’re just as much as a “person” as you are (as I said, they pay their taxes and serve in the military and have kids and participate in the economy and sit in Congress and vote in ballots and bag your groceries and design new products and create your homes and and and…), so they are deserving of this “privilege” called “marriage.” Equal protection (and treatment) under the Law. There is no room for silly, heterosexist arguments in court–the Constitution dictates equality, and we can’t start picking which groups to exclude because we don’t “think they’re normal enough”.

  25. Captain John Doe

    Try that “equality” argument when you try to marry your mother or father.
    Sorry, those men who stick their dicks in other men ARE unequal. You are sludge. Human excrement. DEAL WITH IT.

  26. Hmmm…I guess going to law school didn’t do any favors for some of y’all out there. Perhaps they should have taught a little Biology as well, eh?

    The purpose of marriage is for one Man and one Woman to become one in a union so as to procreate and have offspring so as to propagate the species. Can one of you “scholarly” lawyers out there please enlighten me as to how what two men or two women do to each other in bed can somehow propagate the species? I didn’t think so. I rest my case.

    I’m talking to those other idiot lawyers out there JD. ;)

    Happy New Year, Mike G.

  27. I read your article and all the the comments that were left for you. So, I think you maybe surprised by what I am going to say;

    YOU COULDN’T BE MORE RIGHT!!!

    I live in a city where gays can get married legally. In fact,a we have a very popular “Gay Pride” week long celebration that is also, unfortunately, a tourist attraction. Queers come from all over the world to get married here.

    I personally find it all to be rather disgusting. Just that fact that our laws have been perverted to make a minority group feel better about themselves is wrong (this happens all the time though). Marriage has always been a scared thing and still should be. However, how can it be any longer? It cannot.

    They are NOT equal to us and never will be! No, matter how many liberal judges and politicians change our laws.

    Society as a whole was a far better off when these people lived in the shadows and knew their place.

    • That’s funny Tricia because there used to be a law that said WOMEN couldn’t vote, which I assume you are by your girly name. And then you women folk started bitching and we had to go and change that law to make your minority group feel better. And now you want to be equal to us men? Please. Say on your side of the river because you will never be better than us men. I think it is disgusting you think your feeble minds will ever be on the same level as us! There is no way women could ever form enough of a logical thought, outside of how to bake a cake, that would allow you to make decisions for our country. And now you want equal pay, the world is coming to an end!

      What you’ve just read is along the lines of what John Doe and others would have said 100 years ago about women. Now isn’t that ironic? How the hell would you be able to vote against gay marriage if those stupid liberals (which I’m not by the way) didn’t pass laws for your equality.

  28. aff4366@gmail.com

    lol you’re christian?

    sorry, man.

  29. Jesus said to the adultress, “Neither do I condemn you.” But what the faggot lovers forget is the rest of the story. He said, “Go, and sin no more.” The faggot apologists leave that part out. Being a Christian does not mean perverting the word of God and making it excuse sinful behaviour. All faggots should be sorry for their actions, and repent from their evil ways. And those who make sorry assed excuses for their shameful behavior, and then try to cow Christians into doing likewise, should fuck the hell off.

  30. How is the love between two, consenting, mature adults, in any way, whatsoever, logically, comparable to the love between a man and his corpse, a man and an unwilling victim, or wanging one at fido? It ain’t, like it or not. End of story. End of story. End of story. End of story. Don’t bother trying to argue lest you fall further into ignorance, its not a trip I imagine you’re enjoying too much.

    You try and make your argument seem reasoned, factual, well thought out, its just, I think monkeys have written better articles with their buttcheeks, bouncing on a typewriter.The entire thing could have been summed up in around 1-2 sentences “Marriage should be between a man and a woman, if gays get to get married, I get to say nigger”. Well, if I don’t win the lottery this week, I have the right to jump over the McDonalds counter and take as many big macs as I want at gunpoint. Tough shit, I make the rules, right?

    Seriously, what difference does it make what two people do behind closed doors? It hasn’t got anything to do with you, I understand the definition of marriage, but if one dude puts a ring on another dude and says I do, that’s sounds alot like some kind of marriage is going on, and its gonna happen sometime, legal or not, hows it affect you? Say gays got the rights to marry, does that make your marriage to your wife unholy? Does it change a thing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s