Cat the homophobe, KingPorky the instigator, elmatto the word-stealer and blaster the parodizer. All of you get in a private group and debate the crap out of each other. Whatever dirty tricks will hopefully be thin if there is no audience to appeal to. Not to mention we've had this same argument over and over and over.
Cat the homophobe, KingPorky the instigator, elmatto the word-stealer and blaster the parodizer. All of you get in a private group and debate the crap out of each other. Whatever dirty tricks will hopefully be thin if there is no audience to appeal to. Not to mention we've had this same argument over and over and over.
That pretty much describes me when someone flat out says something. I'm so curious ;_;
Your not even creating a counter-argument. Your just throwing insults.
At least I mixed the insults into my argument.
I'm at least pointing something valid out. Your arguments were just guises for getting crap past the radar.
Anyway, the reason I'm not actually arguing is because I don't think the argument will turn out well. And I don't mean that selfishly, because I don't care about winning or losing. I mean it will just devolve into something neither of us really want. So instead I'm opting for the almost-passive-aggressive approach. Like I said, you ought to thank me.
I've said it before, I'll gladly say it again: "Marriage" shouldn't be a legal/government issue. Religion has no place in politics. Civil unions are another matter. All "marriages" should be "civil unions" as far as the Government is concerned and what people call it amongst themselves is their concern.
I've said it before, I'll gladly say it again: "Marriage" shouldn't be a legal/government issue. Religion has no place in politics. Civil unions are another matter. All "marriages" should be "civil unions" as far as the Government is concerned and what people call it amongst themselves is their concern.
Duplicate threads = spam
Its just like making another thread about ponies, dubstep, or furries
All "marriages" should be "civil unions" as far as the Government is concerned and what people call it amongst themselves is their concern.
THIS.
No one should get benefits for being married. The government nor religion should have a place in the ceremonial bond of two people. It's unfair to people who don't get married, it's unfair to people who CAN'T get married. Do I even have to mention the fact that the system can be abused? People can get married without loving each other and reap the benefits. Oh and don't get me started on gays ruining the "sanctity" of marriage, because divorce rates will tell you there is no "sanctity" to ruin.
That pretty much describes me when someone flat out says something. I'm so curious ;_;
HOLY ****. I love that name. I got a new nick.
Not that it's even remotely accurate, but oh well. I guess you can justify sacrificing quality for... uhh... what, exactly?
You heard that, green and red.
Not that it's even remotely accurate, but oh well. I guess you can justify sacrificing quality for... uhh... what, exactly?
You heard that, green and red.
If there was anyone I know willing to sell defecation just because it's perfumed, it would be you.
You heard that, green and red.
I just said that.
1st post to this thread, i said it first.
Gorramm Feryll and his inaction at the brink of a Forum Fiasco!
What would Mother say! :angry.gif:
You heard that, green and red.
I'm at least pointing something valid out. Your arguments were just guises for getting crap past the radar.
Anyway, the reason I'm not actually arguing is because I don't think the argument will turn out well. And I don't mean that selfishly, because I don't care about winning or losing. I mean it will just devolve into something neither of us really want. So instead I'm opting for the almost-passive-aggressive approach. Like I said, you ought to thank me.
You heard that, green and red.
WTF? **** no. I don't take orders from you.
I've said it before, I'll gladly say it again: "Marriage" shouldn't be a legal/government issue. Religion has no place in politics. Civil unions are another matter. All "marriages" should be "civil unions" as far as the Government is concerned and what people call it amongst themselves is their concern.
Duplicate threads = spam
Its just like making another thread about ponies, dubstep, or furries
So your post replying to a "spam thread" is something that you knowingly and willfully did against the rules? Interesting.
On Topic:
Gay Marriage? No.
Marriage? No.
Civil Unions for all gay or straight? Yes.
THIS.
No one should get benefits for being married. The government nor religion should have a place in the ceremonial bond of two people. It's unfair to people who don't get married, it's unfair to people who CAN'T get married. Do I even have to mention the fact that the system can be abused? People can get married without loving each other and reap the benefits. Oh and don't get me started on gays ruining the "sanctity" of marriage, because divorce rates will tell you there is no "sanctity" to ruin.