12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

[Mystech]

i donn see a reason why YOUR opinion should act as the decision of someone's life!
so ur vote is negligible!

Or to paraphrase in a slightly more coherent manner: Max, you have no controlling interest in the romantic and social aspects of other random people's lives, and as such simply have no claim or authority to be making those life-decisions for them. It's a bit like me trying to say that I don't like eating muffins with breakfast, so naturally I've got the right to prohibit others from eating muffins. It simply does not follow. I am not the muffin minister, and have no power to intrude on the sovereignty of other people’s breakfast.

 

[Baron Max]

Max, you have no controlling interest in the romantic and social aspects of other random people's lives, and as such simply have no claim or authority to be making those life-decisions for them.

Oh, but I do! I'm a part of the society and, as such, have a vested interest in that society as a whole. And while you might not believe it or like it, the very idea of society is groupings of humans with a common goal and common interests AND they give out "rights" and make laws in order to maintain the integrity of that society.

It's a bit like me trying to say that I don't like eating muffins with breakfast, so naturally I've got the right to prohibit others from eating muffins.

But if the society installed YOU as the muffin minister or the minister of breakfasts, then they, the members of society would be giving you that "right", don't you see that?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Please draw a parallel between drunk drivers and homosexuals for me.

Oh, god! It's not a parallel between drunks and homos, it's a parallel between the right to make LAWS for those groups of people!! Why can't you read? I think I've said it three times now!

.... Max, in your opinion what would be the reason for homosexuality, or same sex marriage to be considerd criminal?

In the same way we say drunk driving is criminal .....by creating laws that say so!!!!! A drunk driver WOULD NOT break any previous laws UNTIL he had an accident ...but society has deemed that he MIGHT have an accident, so we create laws against drunk driving. It's just another discriminatory law against ONE GROUP of people -- drunks!

Same-sex marriage will be the same type of law ...society doesn't like it, doesn't want it, so we'll create laws to prevent it. Simple.

.... whereas driving with any mental or physical impairment is generally prohibited by law and at least ticketable.

But that's only because society enacted a law against it!!! It's just a law, like any other law ....society wanted it, so they created it. Society doesn't want homos to marry, so society will create laws to prevent it ...in exactly the same way we created laws to prevent drivers from driving drunk. Simple.

.... Again I don't really see the connection between homosexuals and drunk drivers. One group causes great risk of self-harm, property damage, ....

NO!!! NO, he doesn't NOT!!! A drunk driver, just like any other driver, does NOT cause ANY damage or death ....UNTIL... he has an accident! But notice that that's also true of any other driver. So why are we singling out, discriminating, against drunks? Ahhh, because he MIGHT have an accident! And we, members of society, don't like to gamble ....so we created laws... we decided to discriminate against drunks!!! ...because he MIGHT have an accident and hurt someone. ....might! Just like regular drivers MIGHT have accidents and hurt someone.

.... (homos) just kind of wants people to shut up and leave 'em alone.

Oh, but YOU want to be able to walk in demonstrations and protests? You want to be able to demand marriage certificates? You want to be able to demand the right to adopt children? ......yet you wnat the rest of us to "shut up and leave you alone"?? Duh?? Is that the way you think society should act?

But don't you think drunks feel the same way? So should we shut up and leave them alone also? If later, they have an accident and kill someone, THEN we can arrest them and throw 'em in jail.

Drunks by definition are mentally and physically impaired and as such can not be trusted to act safely toward themselves or others.

Many people feel the same way about homos!!

Teenagers are young and stupid,...

Most teenagers don't feel that way! So shouldn't we let them demand their own rights in the same way as you want homos to be able to demand their own rights? What the fuck is the difference? (and you can include drunks in that question, too.)

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Yes ...society enacts laws and rules that it thinks are appropriate for all of it's members ....without regard to what some might think is "discriminatory" laws and rules! Now do YOU see the pattern?

There is legislation limiting the behavior of these groups because of a lack of ability to govern themselves in a societal adequate fashion, ...

How can you say that when you couldn't see the same pattern above? In this statement, you're agreeing with me, yet in the statements above, you practically called me an idiot (or did you?).

Are you trying to say that you feel that homosexuals are impaired individuals who are not qualified to make their own decisions in life as would any other competent adult?

No, absolutely NOT! However, if those "life decisions" are made WITHIN a society, then those "life decisions" must conform to the general laws and rules of that society ....as deemed neccesary by the members of that society.

What other member of a society can just make or break any fuckin' law or rule that they don't like? And what should happen to those members who do it? And if it does happen, what's to happen to that society? Can it remain as the same society?

...so I'm afraid that the argument of "Well I don't like homosexuals, so they shouldn't be able to do as they wish and cary about their lives if I say different" is going to be adiquate.

So any and all members of a society should just be able to make their own rules and laws as it suits them? And if so, why not the drunks, too? And why not the teenagers, too?

What is "society" to you, Mystech? ...just a group of people who have no connection to any of the other members? ...without any responsibility to the other members?

Baron Max

 

[john smith]

Oh, but I do!

You may think you do,however you do not.

I'm a part of the society

Are you sure??

i have a vested interest in that society as a whole

Dont make me laugh, someone who holds the same kind of views as you do has no place in society, and has no 'vested intrest',(apart from in your anti gay,anti people campaign) facist.

Baron Max

Jesus dear christ, like calling yourself Adolf Hitler, oh no sorry, thats who some people (me ) would associate your views with,fruitcake eating psycho

 

[Baron Max]

You may think you do,however you do not.

How would you know that?

Are you sure??

As I grow older and older, I realize how little I actual am sure of.

Dont make me laugh, someone who holds the same kind of views as you do has no place in society, and has no 'vested intrest',(apart from in your anti gay,anti people campaign) facist.

So is it you that goes around determining who should and should not be a part of "society"? Is that a full-time job or a only part-time?

I'm curious, however, what your credentials are and just who appointed you the "Keeper Of Society's Members"?

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

Oh, god! It's not a parallel between drunks and homos, it's a parallel between the right to make LAWS for those groups of people!! Why can't you read? I think I've said it three times now!

I'm going to put a little red collar around your throat with a brass bell, rename you Mr.Wiskers and feed you out of a dish on the floor. Since we don't need parallels between different things to treat them the same way, that’s what is going to happen I'm afraid. Old bastard = Cat because I want it to be so and don't want to explain why.

 

[Mystech]

Oh, god! It's not a parallel between drunks and homos, it's a parallel between the right to make LAWS for those groups of people!! Why can't you read?

I could ask you the same question, but then I already know that your problem is not in literacy but in critical thinking. Since you want to pretend that you're completely dense; how are homosexuals enough like drunk drivers that legislating against them is justifiable? If we can just make up our minds to do these sorts of things willy nilly without any rhyme or reason, then why couldn't we pass a law that says that all straight white Christian males must be drawn and quartered? Have you ever considered that the difference between a democracy and mob rule is minority protections, so that the majority can not dictate every aspect of a smaller group’s lives?

I think I've said it three times now!

Yes, you have, and as I've said, as much as you may like the sound of your own voice, repetition of a flawed argument does not make it correct.

In the same way we say drunk driving is criminal .....by creating laws that say so!!!!!

So there is no definition or distinction between just a normal act or a criminal act outside of what is said about that particular act on some piece of paper? How do people decide what to pass measures on if this is the case? In the absence of written law are there any criminal acts? I would submit that you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about. Take a moment to really think about these things, why do we have the laws we do? And don't tell me that it's because it's what the people wanted, for one thing that's not necessarily correct, but even if it were, then why did they want such laws?

A drunk driver WOULD NOT break any previous laws UNTIL he had an accident ...but society has deemed that he MIGHT have an accident, so we create laws against drunk driving. It's just another discriminatory law against ONE GROUP of people -- drunks!

And rightly so, as the average person has a serious vested interest in governing such behavior - their own safety! There is no such equivalent for same sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage will be the same type of law ...society doesn't like it, doesn't want it, so we'll create laws to prevent it. Simple.

Honestly now, Max, you're trying to sound stupid, aren't you? I mean I wasn't going to call you on it before, but I think that this statement constitutes a willful act to come off like a completely empty headed dolt. Do you pause to think for even an instant before you write this stuff down?

Why has society deemed these things wrong? And moreover, from where does their authority over both of these matters come from? I'd like to leave you to answer the questions for yourself, but you've already shown time and time again that your critical thinking skills are tragically sub-par.

Drunk drivers pose a very real danger to the safety of others, as such people have a right to have some say about the issue. There is simply no criteria which gives a valid authority to anyone who wants to get involved in who complete strangers marry within the boundaries of mutually consenting non-related adults (let's not get into those other issues, as they are, and have been, threads in and of themselves).

It's just a law, like any other law ....society wanted it, so they created it. Society doesn't want homos to marry, so society will create laws to prevent it

And homosexuals are not a part of American society? That's news to me. If you don't consider homosexuals a part of your society, I don't see how even in your own mind you feel that there can be any grounds for others to have a say in the issue. If society is unaffected, then why should they be calling the shots?

A drunk driver, just like any other driver, does NOT cause ANY damage or death ....UNTIL... he has an accident! But notice that that's also true of any other driver. So why are we singling out, discriminating, against drunks? Ahhh, because he MIGHT have an accident! And we, members of society, don't like to gamble ....so we created laws... we decided to discriminate against drunks!!! ...because he MIGHT have an accident and hurt someone. ....might! Just like regular drivers MIGHT have accidents and hurt someone.

If you're trying to convince me that there's no genuine distinction in the level of threat created by a drunk driver vs. a sober and otherwise capable driver, then I'd have to ask whether you'd rather have me throw a bullet at you or fire it from a gun.

Taking the analogy a little further, being that you've finally begun to distinguish between criminality and non-criminality, what do you feel might happen if same sex marriages are recognized by our government? We'll be happy, but not so deliriously happy that we'll run red lights and plow into you at 80mph.

Oh, but YOU want to be able to walk in demonstrations and protests? You want to be able to demand marriage certificates? You want to be able to demand the right to adopt children? ......yet you wnat the rest of us to "shut up and leave you alone"?? Duh?? Is that the way you think society should act?

Yes, I should hope that the rest of society should have enough of a backbone. If there's one thing that the homosexual community knows very well, it's that when we sit around and just try to trust people's better nature to overcome their prejudices and hatreds things tend to go downhill and get very ugly. You do realize that you are the reason for these protests and demonstrations, don't you? Without you we could just sit back relax and enjoy our equal footing and fair shake.

But don't you think drunks feel the same way? So should we shut up and leave them alone also? If later, they have an accident and kill someone, THEN we can arrest them and throw 'em in jail.

No, certainly not. As I have said there is the distinction of public danger. I think that even regular drinkers understand the danger which drunk drivers pose on our roads and highways. They can not be left alone because despite their own intentions they can not leave our safety alone. I hope you'll note how this situation differs from same-sex marriage.

Many people feel the same way about homos!!

Well I'm glad that you don't feel yourself to be too big a man to resort to mindless bigotry. Some people think the earth is 6,000 years old, but they still drive cars fueled by petroleum and get elictricity from burning coal. It's ok for people to think stupid things so long as they agree to live in a world governed by scientific and reasoned learning.

Yes ...society enacts laws and rules that it thinks are appropriate for all of it's members ....without regard to what some might think is "discriminatory" laws and rules!

Appropriate for all of it's members? Then how do you explain the double standard? If homosexuals are members of society and they do not get to dictate who straight people can marry, or some similar invasive micromanagement of their lives, how can we discuss this issue in universal terms?

No, absolutely NOT! However, if those "life decisions" are made WITHIN a society, then those "life decisions" must conform to the general laws and rules of that society ....as deemed neccesary by the members of that society.

And what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You're sounding awfully authoritarian here, you know. I wonder how you might feel if the UN decided that all of America needed to shut down it's polluting businesses, and then used (some imaginary) army to enforce it's resolution? That sure would be fair to the US, wouldn't it?

What other member of a society can just make or break any fuckin' law or rule that they don't like? And what should happen to those members who do it? And if it does happen, what's to happen to that society? Can it remain as the same society?

Think of these questions as they apply to slavery, Jim Crow laws, or Women's Suffrage. Should blacks and women had the right to get all uppity and demand that laws persecuting them should be removed? What has happened to American society as a result?

 

[Mystech]

As I grow older and older, I realize how little I actual am sure of.

I'm made aware of how little you really know every time you make a post.

So is it you that goes around determining who should and should not be a part of "society"? Is that a full-time job or a only part-time?

Why don't you look at your own schedule to answer that question, it seems you've already given yourself the job.

I'm curious, however, what your credentials are and just who appointed you the "Keeper Of Society's Members"?

Hey hey, finally a relevant question. You're just asking the wrong person. Try looking in a mirror.

 

[john smith]

As I grow older and older, I realize how little I actual am sure of.

NO offence retard, but thats just a bit of a contradiction

So is it you that goes around determining who should and should not be a part of "society"? Is that a full-time job or a only part-time?

Oh, thanks for asking,um no actually, only part time, we have offical shifts for those of us that arent busy slagging off

'inferior'

peoples(members of society)

I'm curious, however, what your credentials are and just who appointed you the "Keeper Of Society's Members"?

NO no, youv got it wrong again (no suprise to most members of this forum), you see im not 'keeper' of societys members,have you forgotton,your the boss, i, however am district atourney of societys members....

Baron Max

Im just curious, but just who appointed you 'BARON'???

 

[Baron Max]

And homosexuals are not a part of American society?

Yes, they are. And as it stands, with regard to marriage, they have the same rights as regular folks .....we can't marry people of the same sex either!

So, see, you're being treated exactly, precisely the same as regular ol' folks with regard to marriage. And that should make you happy as hell. So why ain't you?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

Yes, they are. And as it stands, with regard to marriage, they have the same rights as regular folks .....we can't marry people of the same sex either!

I'd prefer to live in a culture which doesn't tell me that I must be raped if I want to have the same legal protections as everyone else. That'd be pretty neat. Imagine a world where you were forced allow another man to kiss you with tongue if you wanted to use public transit. Kind of the same thing.

I should really hope that a Catch-22 isn't the best that we can do in this situation. The point of this whole ordeal is to get the government to take it's silly laws of prohibition on the rights of homosexuals off the book and finally accept that monogamous same-sex marriages do not differ significantly enough from heterosexual unions that the law should apply differently to them; not that that was necessarily ever the case, of course. It’s less about how the two differ and more about the gut “YUCK!” factor that people seem to have trouble getting over than a genuine assessment of differentiation.

Laws that actually fit the needs of society and its people is what it’s all about. You lose nothing if same sex marriage is legalized, and we lose some special treatment, something we both hate. The only thing standing in the way at the moment is the pettiness of people like you who feel that if we want it, then it simply must be wrong.

 

[Baron Max]

The point of this whole ordeal is to get the government to take it's silly laws of prohibition on the rights of homosexuals off the book ...

Hell, I suppose next you'll want us to give women the right to vote, for god's sake! Or worse, give equal rights to blacks! Shit, where, oh, where, is this nation going .....to hell in a handbasket? ...LOL!

You lose nothing if same sex marriage is legalized, ...

Well, I don't think that I agree with that? Basically won't "the people" lose their ability to control their own society? Won't heteros actually be succumbing to the demands of a very small, very vocal, special-interest group? Is that how you'd like this society to be governed ....whenever a small, special-interest group demands something, the rest of society's members bow to their demands?

It’s less about how the two differ and more about the gut “YUCK!” factor....

No, I don't think so. I think the "yuck" factor has over long, long ago. I think gays are basically accepted in society now, with a minor amount of "yuck", of course. But still, all-in-all, I think most people accept that homos are different and should be ......ahhhh, tolerated???? ....LOL! (But please don't make me work or fight a war beside one, huh, boss?!)

Personally, I think if gays didn't make such a big damned public issue of it all, in a few years they could marry without much difficulty. But ye're tryin' to push it down people's throats, and they don't like it. How many years did it take to for society to free the black slaves and accept them into our midst? Think about it, okay?

Imagine a world where you were forced allow another man to kiss you with tongue if you wanted to use public transit.

Well, it'd be a public transportation system ONLY for gays! Gays are so promiscuous that it would be a immediate and profitable success.

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

Hell, I suppose next you'll want us to give women the right to vote, for god's sake! Or worse, give equal rights to blacks! Shit, where, oh, where, is this nation going .....to hell in a handbasket? ...LOL!

Tell me about it, it's getting so that straight white Christian males can't just shit on whoever they want!

Well, I don't think that I agree with that? Basically won't "the people" lose their ability to control their own society? Won't heteros actually be succumbing to the demands of a very small, very vocal, special-interest group? Is that how you'd like this society to be governed ....whenever a small, special-interest group demands something, the rest of society's members bow to their demands?

We are part of "the people" and those who aren't us are unaffected. There's no loss here. It's not a genuine negative when your right to remove the rights of others is taken away.

No, I don't think so. I think the "yuck" factor has over long, long ago. I think gays are basically accepted in society now, with a minor amount of "yuck", of course. But still, all-in-all, I think most people accept that homos are different and should be ......ahhhh, tolerated???? ....LOL! (But please don't make me work or fight a war beside one, huh, boss?!)

yeah. . . okay, whatever.

Personally, I think if gays didn't make such a big damned public issue of it all, in a few years they could marry without much difficulty. But ye're tryin' to push it down people's throats, and they don't like it.

That's right, because years of silence and invisibility sure did help us out in the past, hasn't it? It's always the victim's fault, isn't it? "Oh well if you ask for it then you ain't gonna' get it because you're pushy and rude and we're petty like that"! Sorry, that doesn't fly.

How many years did it take to for society to free the black slaves and accept them into our midst? Think about it, okay?

I don't know, you're a pretty old guy, why don't you tell me? Didn't staying silent and knowing their place really help out the African Americans? Good thing they didn't do something stupid like take to the streets and have big silly speaches and protests and marches and the like. Same thing with those womens suffrage feminazis.

Well, it'd be a public transportation system ONLY for gays! Gays are so promiscuous that it would be a immediate and profitable success.

I'm sure that you're typing this with a completely straight face while bouncing breasts try to sell you all maner of things on the television, while on break from the latest show where striaght men and women are paid money not to cheat on one another but just don't seem to be able to manage it.

 

[Baron Max]

There's no loss here. It's not a genuine negative when your right to remove the rights of others is taken away.

Oh, but that's what YOU say! Heteros disagree with you. They think that they ARE losing something. So ....who's right?

And as to removing your rights, that's false! We heteros have the same rights to marriage as gays ....exactly the same. I still want to marry my goat, but they won't let me!! Should I begin violent protests and burn down sections of the city until I get my way? "Goat Fucker Unite!!" ...LOL!

I don't know, you're a pretty old guy, why don't you tell me? Didn't staying silent and knowing their place really help out the African Americans?

Well, as I understand it, after a violent Civil War where millions lost their lives fighting and dying of diseases and continued rioting and burning down sections of cities, they've finally gotten all the same rights under the law as whites ......and they still don't like it! What the fuck?? Hell, I suppose they expect whites to like them, for god's sake?!?! Duh?

Oh, and I don't watch television ...I'm afraid that I'll learn too much about what's going on in the world ...and that might ruin my happiness and contentment.

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

Won't heteros actually be succumbing to the demands of a very small, very vocal, special-interest group? Is that how you'd like this society to be governed ....whenever a small, special-interest group demands something, the rest of society's members bow to their demands?

Bow? Is that what they will be doing? Silly me, I thought they wouldn't have to do a thing at all. In fact if gay marriage were instantly legalized they would never know the goddamned difference, but the reason it is an issue is because they want to assert their dominance over something so they can beat their chest and get righteously red in the face and feel holier than those ungodly queers. It's the opposing that causes a problem, there isn't any practical effect they would feel if they just let it go.

Personally, I think if gays didn't make such a big damned public issue of it all, in a few years they could marry without much difficulty. But ye're tryin' to push it down people's throats, and they don't like it. How many years did it take to for society to free the black slaves and accept them into our midst? Think about it, okay?

Well, lets see. In this nations history we have had about 200 years of no gay activism, and about zero progress in gaining acceptance. Since the early seventies we have had an organized gay activist movement and now we have finally made some progress.
Did you benevolent strait white Christian males give women the vote before they "shoved it down your throat" did you desegregate public institutions before they "shoved it down your throat?" Please do describe to me one oppressed minority's success story wherein they kept their heads down, and everything just turned the hell around for them.

 

[Mystech]

Oh, but that's what YOU say! Heteros disagree with you. They think that they ARE losing something. So ....who's right?

Well I haven't heard this argument from anyone else but you, and you aren't being particularly clear on the subject. Thinking that you're losing something and actualy losing something are two different things, opinion and fact. You can't really legislate purely on opinion when the facts contradict it.

And as to removing your rights, that's false! We heteros have the same rights to marriage as gays ....exactly the same.

Well okay then I'll just go sponsor my Canadian boyfriend to move down here into the states, we'll get married, I'll finish up my degree which will allow me to go be an officer in the military to pay off my student loans, and then we'll settle down somewhere nice and warm like Florida and Adopt a child. . . Oh, wait, I can't do any of that shit because of pig headed morons like you! Thanks for letting your pettiness fuck with my life, that's really classy. Oh eer except finish up my degree, I'm already doing that. . . little slice of my real life in there.

Heeeyaaww haw haw haw, I'm a fucking hick! [minor paraphrasing for brevity's sake]

Would you like to explain to me the parallel that you apparently see between a gay man and a goat? If you're trying to apply some sort of ridiculous slippery slope argument to this issue, then I would submit that Americans must be stripped of their rights to bear arms immediately because if we let 'em have guns then there's nothing to keep them from having fighter jets and bombs and chemical weapons and atomic bombs! All weapons are exactly the same! All relationships that I don't approve of are exactly the same! Up is down and black is white, there's no differentiation between anything!

Maybe I've just got you wrong, Max, maybe you're trying to be kind, and you're some sort of burnt out old hippy who is hung up on the idea that all things in the universe are connected or something. Not very likely but maybe I can still hold out hope.

Well, as I understand it, after a violent Civil War where millions lost their lives fighting and dying of diseases and continued rioting and burning down sections of cities, they've finally gotten all the same rights under the law as whites ......and they still don't like it!

Are you sure you're 60, man? Did you like maybe miss the 60s all together? Too high at the time? When you were born African Americans still didn't have all the same legal rights as whites, it took an ongoing civil rights movement to secure that. Also your numbers are off in calculating the number of deaths in the Civil war, the death toll was in the low hunddreds of thousands, not millions.

 

[KitNyx]

We had a college prof (PhD) write an editorial in the local newspaper explaining how marriage benefits for gay couples were absurd because they contributed nothing to society...Number 2 on the list that started this discussion. Following was my editorial written in response:

"This is in response to an article on partner benefits by Suri Rajan. Mr. Rajan argued in his article that marriage benefits should be given to heterosexual relationships in return for their contribution of children to our society. I find this theory lacking.

According to this theory, heterosexual couples who decide not to have children (yes, this happens) should not be eligible for benefits, neither should couples who find they can not have children, and it can be argued that neither should couples whose children are no longer dependants.

Furthermore, why then would heterosexual couples that do not yet have children receive benefits? Are we as a society rewarding them for a potential contribution? What if they never deliver (pun intended), does society demand repayment? I could continue listing examples or hypothetical situations, but I think my point is made.

The article does address my above concern (non-childbearing couples); Mr. Rajan states that they cannot be denied benefits because that would amount to discrimination. I find this hypocritical. Discrimination is the act of making social distinctions based upon prejudices. In order for Mr. Rajan and myself to have this discussion we would first have to make distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

I am by no means claiming to understand the motives behind Mr. Rajan's ideas, but I am going to take this chance to address another personal concern. I am tired of hearing attempts at logically justifying pushing religious belief into politics. We all have the right to our own beliefs as long as they do not tread upon the rights of others. This current zeitgeist, turning religious moral into enforceable law, is really beginning to scare me. Is the job of government to enforce religious policy? I believe the job of government is to protect the minority from the majority.

Back to the issue at hand, in a place where all people are created equal we have two choices: One, award benefits to couples regardless of race, sex, creed, etc, or Two, remove them from all." - Me

- KitNyx

 

[Baron Max]

Ya' know, this topic just keeps going and going and going and..... ...LOL!

I don't think gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry. Y'all think that gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry. I also think that nothing that we say here is likely to change the minds of either of us.

I think I'm done talking about the issue ....it's ain't no fun no more. But I'll still vote to keep gays and lesbians from being allowed to marry.

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

I think I'm done talking about the issue ....it's ain't no fun no more. But I'll still vote to keep gays and lesbians from being allowed to marry.

Thanks for being petty and mean spirited, Max. I'm glad you'll be dead soon, enjoy the special circle of hell for those who keep malice in their hearts.

 

[Baron Max]

Thanks for being petty and mean spirited, Max. I'm glad you'll be dead soon, enjoy the special circle of hell for those who keep malice in their hearts.

And your post was NOT petty and mean spirited? ...LOL!!

Hippo-critters, that's what humans are ....just plain ol' hippo-critters! And that's even the ones who are gay, too. ...LOL!

Baron Max