Jump to Navigation

NH House Rejects "Gay Marriage"

Yesterday.

Were some House members reading the discussions here?

Of course, the power of a wealthy but tiny minority will see that this gets overthrown to allow a new, very wealthy, but protected "civil rights" of American homosexuals.

Or, as one American indignantly said about the "civil rights" of his own race recently, "Homosexuals can always change their behavior, but I can't change my color".

xrayspx's picture

What I didn't get was that what they seemed to reject was Gov. Lynch's language that was specifically protecting churches from having to marry anyone they don't think should be married.

That was a ridiculous thing to insert, IMHO, since there's already no way for anyone to force a church to marry anybody.

My wife and I had to ask the bishop presiding over the parish we were married in to allow us some dispensation because I am an atheist. They could have said no, and we would have taken our money elsewhere. Likewise, if a Jew and a Methodist like the look of a particular Catholic church, and want to get married there, the church will rightly tell them to GTFO. I don't see why that language needed to be specifically added in this case?

We obviously disagree on a homosexual's ability to change their orientation. Anyone can change their behavior, but I'm very skeptical of the "Reformed Homosexual" movement.

Also, the whole "Wealthy Minority" issue doesn't make sense to me. I mean, CEOs of corporations are also a Wealthy Minority, big deal?

I can't find good statistics on that in the 5 minutes I've spent looking. PFLAG has some, but it looks like they're from 1990, which is worse than useless: http://www.pflagupstatesc.org/statistics.htm. That does show about a 30% higher household income in gay households. However, it might just be a US phenomenon? In these much more recent numbers from Canada it seems the numbers are reversed, with a lower personal income for gay men vs straight men, however lesbians are still marginally higher: http://ideas.repec.org/a/cje/issued/v41y2008i4p1239-1261.html

10 minutes of struggle later:

I found that the repec.org site has more stuff by the same author, unfortunately my home network connection won't stay connected, I'll read up more later, thanks for the topic to think on though.

Except for perhaps Disney and Hollywood, CEOs don't depend on any particular sexual practice for incomes.

Governor Lynch is a lawyer. He KNOWS what lawsuits can be brought.

The truth is that a large percentage of homosexuals will admit that they are introduced to their perversion by pederasts.

For a decade, we all watched the pederasty in the Catholic Church brought to light. Now we're finding out it's a worldwide problem. It's not surprising to read of it elsewhere in spite of the understandable reluctance by young male prey to come forward.

How can you change your sexual orientation when homosexuality is a learned perversion and has become the only sexual behavior you've been introduced to? Or more simply put,

How many women have introduced young males to homosexual behavior?

That they are a "wealthy class", nearly about to become a "protected class", is due to their not having children.

The intent of homosexuals to marry is to gain, among other advantages of marriage, tax benefits. I believe they are in for a big surprise themselves, as new tax laws are surely coming. (And the new tax laws won't be good news for "gays" or "breeders").

While male homosexuals rarely adopt female children (and rarely adopt children anyway), Lesbians are likely to have "turkey baster babies".

If you look at recent Lesbian "divorces", the biological mom gets extreme courtroom scrutiny in divorce cases. That is just wrong, and what income they have as individuals is lost through the courts. That lost money, spent to defend against the abuse charges brought by the "other mom" in court, lowers the average for ALL homosexual incomes when Lesbian incomes are combined with male homosexual incomes.

It's not rocket science, but most any social issue can be artificially made "complicated".

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

Except for perhaps Disney and Hollywood, CEOs don't depend on any particular sexual practice for incomes.

I've never known any rich gay people whose incomes rely on their sexual orientation. I mean, a DBA making $140k/year is making that money because he's good at databases, not because of anything he's doing with the boss.

Do you have a link for the poll statistics for income based on sexual orientation?

I've worked in quite a few different pay brackets over the years, and I have a gut feeling that there's significant underreporting at the lower end of the income scale.

For instance, I worked for several years in a warehouse, very nice people, but homophobia was pretty strong there. The only openly gay person in the company that I can recall was the director of HR (so upper management). The hourly staff was pretty brutal about that fact when she wasn't around. In that environment, you would have been a moron to come out to those people knowing how much shit they talked about a director in the company.

If the polling was based on questions like:
Are you gay?
How much do you make?

A lot of people would not admit to being gay. The more "comfortable" people are in their income security, the more likely they are to be open about such things. It's the same with any activist culture. Most of the most active people are going to be the ones with the most time/money on their hands.

Now that I'm in a much higher pay bracket, I can say that I know of more open gays in the workplace, however I doubt the actual percentage would be different. They're just safer in being "out".

I just wonder if they accounted for the fact that many lower income/blue collar people are going to be deeply closeted.

We're talking about a group that can self-select itself out of polling data. You can't walk up to an African American and ask their race, and have them convincingly lie to you about it.

I put "hiring" and "homosexuals" into Google, and Google's "Sponsored Links" sidebar produced "Disney". Not once, but twice on the same page!

Disney has a "Gay Week" parade at DisneyWorld. Parents astonished with the depravity allowed by Disney picked up their video cameras, were then accosted by security, and threatened with taking their cameras and threatened with arrests that never came.

(Boston whale-watching tourists need blindfolds when passing certain Massachusetts beaches).

I'd forgotten about McDonalds and several others that came up. It's worse beyond for-profit businesses anyway. Look at School Boards:

"Anyone wanting to view a transformed world as homosexual activists see it need look no further than Provincetown, Massachusetts. There the school board voted to require schools to present a positive image of homosexuality beginning in preschool. The board also called for hiring preferences for homosexuals within the public school system."

Now, how about answering my question?

How many women have introduced young males to homosexual behavior?

(Dragonfly has twice ducked under answering that one, but maybe you won't).

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

No one makes $100,000/year walking around in a Mickey suit or flipping burgers, so those jobs aren't really contributing too much to the Wealthy Gays lighting cigars with $100's.

xrayspx's picture

I did the same Google search, of "hiring" "homosexuals", with quotes and without, and the first page retrieved zero results including the word "disney". The only Sponsored Link I received was for a site claiming between $15 and $32/hour jobs, which is not rich, by anyones definition. Post up some links, I wanna read.

I am aware of the GayDays tours, which to the best of my knowledge are not sponsored by Disney. However Disney also has Vampire days, Halloween days, and many other days that specific segments of the Christian population would find very offensive. I do not find these offensive. I know that the FRC has asked that people protest Disney over hiring practices and Disney's "anyone who gives us $75/day can ride our rides" outlook.

Here's the deal, these threads are worthless, because we have fundamentally different views on gayness. The only difference is that you don't provide any real statistics, just a swarm of unattributed allegations.

You mention gay rape as the primary way into homosexuality, if not the only reason anyone becomes gay. You mention sustained heavy drug use. You don't mention lesbians at all, never once. To the best of my knowledge, most of the destructive drug abusing behaviors are attributed to gay males, you go nowhere in trying to explain why women turn to other women.

Also, you're largely missing my point that these people trying to get married are adults in love with other adults. This is all legal. So why prevent adults acting legally from achieving the same rights as any other adults acting legally? Regardless of how they're "recruited", regardless of how damaged they are.

For christ's sake, Down Syndrome Kids can get married, are you saying gay people are more damaged than Down Syndrome sufferers?

You're straying from the central arguments and trying to confuse the issue with spurious facts backed up by no impartial sources.

Again, you appear to be arguing against the legality of homosexuality in general, arguing that all gay people are broken in some way and need to be fixed. If that's the case, just say so, and we can have that conversation instead. However the gay marriage argument hinges on certain stipulations. We must stipulate that gay people are capable of making their own decisions, that gay people are capable of "love" as you and I know it, etc. You don't seem to be able to stipulate these facts, so we end up arguing over nonsense that is tangential at best.

I don't really care if people are offended by homosexuality. I'm offended by things I hear in church when I have to go. Honestly, I've been "I'm gonna run up there and punch that motherfucker" offended, on Cape Cod no less. Believe it. I can look past that to see that most religious people aren't craven nutbars. Why is it such a reach to acknowledge that most gay people are just regular folks trying to live their lives?

You've also presented no evidence in favor of the Monied Queer argument. I will probably maintain that it's largely due to under-reporting due to homophobic attitudes in the lower income brackets.

Quick thought experiment:

Where are the largest numbers of Out Gays (Hint: Northeast, SF/Sili Valley, NY, LA, Pacific NW).

Where are the wealthiest people? (Northeast, SF/Sili Valley, LA, NY, Pacific NW)

Where are there more educated folks (college, advanced degrees)? (Northeast, SF/Sili Valley, NY, Pac NW, LA)

It has been shown that technology professions have a higher than overall average of self-professed homosexuality. Some would abuse this stat to say "gays are smarter than average" or "gays make more than the average". I choose to abuse the stat to say "These people are wealthy and confident in queer-friendly environments, and are thus more likely to be open about admitting their sexuality than some $9/hour line worker in a chemical plant in Alabama".

See a pattern here? People are more willing to come out when they're comfortable coming out. If they have a high salary and aren't in fear for their lives or jobs, they're more apt to be honest on a poll equating their sexuality with their income bracket.

The Judiciary will grant "Homosexual Marriage" to those you would NOT BELIEVE, unless you read it in the papers.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1629370.html

What is the youngest homosexual pairing you would allow personally? This judge would allow 12 and 14.

A Vermont homosexual male answers his own questions:

Lie: all gays are wealthy.

The assumption is we're all male--men earn more than women--and childless. What about the lesbians with kids, who were very visible at the hearings?

(You see here that Lesbians subtract the "wealthy" label from male homosexuals, when it is true that child-free male homosexuals ARE wealthy.)

Lie: we're all well-educated.

OK, I'll grant that homophobes are usually uneducated, which is why gays and lesbians are less visible in less-educated groups.

("Homophobes", a term used on ANYBODY who disagrees with homosexual marriage. Here, those who insist that homosexual marriage is a sword directed against women "hate", rather than "fear", those consequences.)

Lie: same-sex marriages will bankrupt the medical system because of AIDS. No DP statistics from companies support this claim.

(If ANY company promulgated these statistics, they'd be put out of existence by rich homosexual lawyer groups). It's bad enough that our prisons can't keep up with lawsuits and homosexuals.)
http://www.kitv.com/mostpopular/19553864/detail.html

Lie: we are a very powerful special interest group.

The only power we really have is that the truth is on our side.

(Sounds like SOME here, espousing undocumented platitudes like "Homosexuals don't assault kids", "homosexuals only read and play with kids", or "Not because of anything he's doing with the boss".)

(You'd think Vermont would be in favor of homosexual marriage, but a vote "Of The People" in Vermont leaves homosexuals using the pejorative "homophobe" as a handy defense. And other states. It FAILED in California).

The link:

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/marriage2.html

you go nowhere in trying to explain why women turn to other women.

Women are nurturing.

Lesbians might not object should their biological male children be turned to homosexuality, failing to produce grandchildren. (But I really don't know).

Some women view males as "animals" and they can't faulted in that. You might even agree with that assertion. I do know that some women can be physically aggressive towards others, both male and female.

I'd prefer to leave the rest of the debate to a woman for explanations anyway.

all gay people are broken in some way and need to be fixed.
I'm saying that there are effeminate males who might very well go through life as a normal married person with unassaulted children. You probably know some.

Those that have been introduced to homosexual techniques are likely rich, or have a hobby that keeps them "poor".

However, with the imprimatur of "Homosexual Marriage", they could be taken in "marriage" at very young ages. I'd like to protect THOSE children, if not ALL children from aggressive male "animals".

I'd like to protect the children of Thailand.

I am aware of the GayDays tours, which to the best of my knowledge are not sponsored by Disney.

Disney World has children there, lots of them. Go figure.

However Disney also has Vampire days, Halloween days, and many other days that specific segments of the Christian population would find very offensive.
Vampires don't assault children.

You mention gay rape as the primary way into homosexuality, if not the only reason anyone becomes gay.
Effeminate male children, and I've observed a few, are the most vulnerable to pederasts. Years-on, I don't know if those children are still living, or only listed on a quilt somewhere.

Regardless of how they're "recruited", regardless of how damaged they are.
I am unable to "disregard" how they're recruited. I think it's criminal.

Down Syndrome Kids can get married, are you saying gay people are more damaged than Down Syndrome sufferers?
This comment borders on Eugenics.

You're straying from the central arguments and trying to confuse the issue with spurious facts backed up by no impartial sources.
Which sources would be acceptable?

Anyone objecting (and that includes a WHOLE LOT of Californians) is labeled a "Christian", or "Jew", "African-American" or "Muslim" "homophobe".

Why is it such a reach to acknowledge that most gay people are just regular folks trying to live their lives?

Marriage was founded to protect womankind from aggression. "Homosexual Marriage" gives the imprimatur to sexual aggressions against male children. (Or simply to
marrying male children too young to know any better.)

You mention sustained heavy drug use.
I did?

I mentioned that pederasts, other child molesters and those in the kiddieporn-generating industry are invariably arrested with illegal drugs in their possession.

I also mentioned that there are urban parties where methamphetamines and other drugs are combined for male homosexual orgies. (Leading to STDs).

They could have said no, and we would have taken our money elsewhere.
Money has become an entitlement?

I'm very skeptical of the "Reformed Homosexual" movement.

That's because it's too late.

Homosexuals, unable to procreate and to maintain (or increase) their number and influence, must recruit early.

PFLAG has some, but it looks like they're from 1990, which is worse than useless:
Amazing, how quickly our society has become overrun with an aggressive homosexual agenda.

See a pattern here?
Yes.

People in homosexual environments feel totally free to acknowledge their perversions to the like-minded around them.

I'm not going to assert my love for an LA baseball team in Boston.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

->Maybe you missed this one while you visited Fark.com.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=1769650&hl=Mr-Dung-announces-...

->Previous link on homosexual lawsuits was one article away from the correct link. This is the correct one.
http://www.kitv.com/news/14135458/detail.html

(Mentions "Predatory Male Homosexuals", like there were any other kind?)

->This one below pretty much covers the debate on objections to predatory homosexual issues. (A "protected class" status that takes from the more deserving among us).

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:EOpMBcjej8UJ:www.leaderu.com/marco/s...

->Another outrageous assertion (like "homosexuals don't molest the children of others) follows.

"Heterosexual children raised by homosexuals could no more become homosexual than a brown-eyed child raised with blue-eyed parents would eventually become blue-eyed."

->"A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays."
(Have you seen this pledge card? So you support young children signing it?)

->Why is David Thorstad mentioned in an article celebrating attacks on "breeders" in Scarsdale? Don't they know who he is?

"They had trespassed, they had cut phone wires, they had vandalized with vengeance, they had taunted and tormented without mercy".

http://www.gaynewsandviews.com/

->A remarkable photograph from the womb found while searching for other things. (Off topic, but).
http://jeffreyleow.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/the_hand_of_hope_.jpg

xrayspx's picture

A referendum vote on a hotbutton issue will often fail, which is why it is often courts that decide. That's why this issue so often ends up getting compared to other civil rights issues like interracial marriage, segregation, etc.

The court comes along and says "No, we guarantee equal protection under the law, for all Americans", regardless of the will of the populace. It sucks, but if constitutional law wasn't applied in this way, you'd have had states denying equal rights for other minority groups far longer than we had.

The specific disconnect here is that you've specifically believe that no one naturally grows up gay, and you've said up in the thread that most/all gays target children. That's an explicit statement that 4.x%, or roughly 14 million people in our population are criminals? That's where we differ. Genetic or not, brain chemistry or not, I don't believe people have to be "lured".

There is no amount of chemical inducement that would make me turn that corner, and in fact, South Africa is having a huge problem currently with gangs of men trying to rape lesbians until they turn straight. Guess what, they're still lesbians. That would seem to counteract your argument that child-abuse turns kids gay. I know for a fact that you couldn't "rape me until I turn gay" either. I would just be angry.

You also don't need to be "effeminate" to be gay, Senator Craig doesn't strike me as particularly femme. Ted Haggard on the other hand, well, I guess he fits a stereotype. I have no thought on Rep Foley, I've never seen him in action.

You're still ignoring the lesbian community here, you've talked a lot about men, but none of the stereotypes you've brought up really apply to women.

I'm pretty much ignoring all the strawman arguments, and as I said earlier, I completely agree with the NH legislature objecting to Gov. Lynch's specific language about protecting the churches from having to marry gays. That's completely superfluous since the churches are under no obligation to marry anyone they don't want to marry. Also, I think it would have been pretty weak for the Gov to say "Pass this bill with this specific language, or I'll veto it in any form", and to have the legislature just capitulate to that demand. Good on them for knocking him down.

In any case, I see where we disagree, it's all about the "nature vs. nurture" argument, which I'm totally not going to get resolved on these boards :-)

Off-topic, did you want me to try and change an anonymous post to give credit where due? I think I can probably do that, either through the regular management tools, or if necessary, I can just change it in SQL.

->You reject my intuitive arguments, ask for links, and you promptly receive them.

->You reject links that have Jewish, Muslim and Christian ties, so Secular links are promptly provided.

->Secular links are rejected as "strawmen".

IT'S APPARENT THAT IT'S NOT ONLY
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT HAS DOGMA.

->The title comes from this link, where your predatory male homosexual heroes are detailed in the press:
http://www.joshuachildrensfoundation.org/articles/archives/child_abuse/i...

->And NON-religious, NON-secular, Scientific documentation links from here:

http://www.joshuachildrensfoundation.org/10_FactsSexAbuseOfMales.php

More concerns:

->Segregation was corrected by Congress, NOT the Judiciary. In fact, The Judiciary produced Dred Scott.

->It's not 4.x%. It's doubled from 1% to 2% in recent years.

->Nobody here is advocating gang rape for any reason.

->Nobody else is forthcoming on Lesbian aggressions here, and I expect there's a good reason for that.

->Nobody said that to be effeminate is to be a homosexual -- I said exactly the opposite. Effeminate males should absolutely be protected from predatory male homosexuals.

->Former Congressman Foley does not show effeminate characteristics. Like the millions of adolescents before him, he was molested as a youth by a predatory male homosexual priest. It's up to millions this month, but only in the European press -- not in the US press.

->As an adult, Foley was empowered to write US statutes to dismiss his predatory male homosexual deviancies LEGALLY.

->You write to dismiss predatory male homosexual deviancies -- as correct -- MORALLY.

->Nobody grows up a male homosexual because no child could conceive of how to BEGIN being a male homosexual. They must be introduced to the PRACTICE of homosexuality by predatory male homosexuals -- whom you are defending with DOGMA.

->There's just one reason you and Dragonfly don't answer my question "How many women have introduced young males to homosexual behavior?"

Because the answer is "zero".

->I doubt you know how the Tierney boys are doing, now that THEIR innocence has been robbed by a predatory male homosexual.

->I'm not particularly interested in the "Anonymous" thing. I would like to know how many are viewing this thread, the adolescent-sitter thread, and the original thread you started on the gaping need for an additional protected class of Americans.

->How did those Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont referenda "Of The People" work out?

->Finally, if you are truly open minded, and totally immune to male homosexual agenda propoganda, tell us how, precisely and exactly, does

"a vote on a hotbutton issue"

FAIL?

>>

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

YAY! I'd heard on the radio that it had passed the Senate today, but I hadn't heard about the House.

Thanks DF

How tolerant of New Hampshire to "put up with" these perverts.

Can a 14 year-old-boy marry a 16 year-old-boy now?

xrayspx's picture

How tolerant of New Hampshire to "put up with" these perverts.

I know, aren't we awesome? Now these perverts can enjoy the same rights as all us other perverts, from S&M whips and chains folks to plain 'ole fashioned swingers, who could already marry whomever they want.

Can a 14 year-old-boy marry a 16 year-old-boy now?
Can a 16 year old boy marry a 14 year old girl? I don't believe they can, no.

....goes and reads....

Yes, it looks like that's perfectly acceptable under NH law. Strangely, there is gender inequality here. The minimum age of marriage in NH is 14 for boys and 13 for girls, with parental consent. WTF is that about? I guess that's good to know if I ever want to marry a 6th grader though.

Thanks for looking that up, but you've made my point—and it's even worse than I thought.

"Marriage" can now be between 14 year-old boys in New Hampshire. :(

On the flip side, Dragonfly is delighted!!! Can related brothers be legally married now? And why not? There's no chance of passing down birth defects or deformaties.

Hmmm. Among the various states, are there even more egregious matings that can take place?

"...Now these perverts can enjoy the same rights as all us other perverts, from S&M whips and chains folks to plain 'ole fashioned swingers, who could already marry whomever they want..."

You left (at least) one perversion out, that I don't see is all that different than the usual male-homosexual perversions—and don't tell me that's not next!

BTW: If asked by the boy, would you be "Best Man" at a NH marriage between the 14-year-old boy and a 54 year-old former priest? The boy won't need parental permission, you know.

"...Strangely, there is gender inequality here..."

WHOA!!!! That's REALLY Strange!

Ummm...that's really strange?

xrayspx's picture

You left (at least) one perversion out, that I don't see is all that different than the usual male-homosexual perversions—and don't tell me that's not next!

No, no one will be marrying their damn dog. Bestiality is illegal on the grounds that animals cannot make informed consent to marry.

BTW: If asked by the boy, would you be "Best Man" at a NH marriage between the 14-year-old boy and a 54 year-old former priest? The boy won't need parental permission, you know.

Why won't that kid need parental consent? The fancy law-talkin' site seemed to indicate that under the age of 18, both sexes need parental sign-off.

"...Strangely, there is gender inequality here..."

WHOA!!!! That's REALLY Strange!

Why isn't that strange? I wonder what led to the decision to make the age of consent 13 for girls and 14 for boys.

On the same token, would you be the best man for a wedding between a 13 year old girl and a 50 year old science teacher?

That's what I don't get about "Conservatives", all I hear is "Nanny state nanny state, making my decisions for me, just leave me alone to lead my life", a sentiment which I share whole-heartedly, but when others want that same right, to lead their lives and be left alone, it's all "Holy shit that's sick no way, amend the Constitution, this must be stopped....Stopped by The Government". Why? What possible difference can this law make in your life?

That's good...'cause I'm not sure where I'm going. (Or where we're going, either).

...On the same token, would you be the best man for a wedding between a 13 year old girl and a 50 year old science teacher?...

Absolutely: a slam-dunk!

...I wonder what led to the decision to make the age of consent 13 for girls and 14 for boys...

The Massachusetts Judiciary was never consulted?

...What possible difference can this law make in your life...?

My insurance premiums will be increasingly affected by an expensive lifestyle that shortens lives by 25 years.

My insurance premiums will be affected by:

1) Removing half of those already paying premiums who can now select which is the cheaper "family plan".

2) Two—who will no longer need to pay the two premiums who paid for prescriptions to counter deadly diseases that they brought on themselves through their own perverted behavior!

Therefore: It's still another tax on those of us who already pay taxes on our incomes, who already now have to suffer increased premiums for health insurance.

(But who cares anyway? It's OPM.)

...No, no one will be marrying their damn dog. Bestiality is illegal on the grounds that animals cannot make informed consent to marry...

My dog happens to be voiceless—a mute—just like those we have in Humankind. But just why can't I marry my dog? You don't have a dog that shows you Love?

We love each other, and I want to leave my estate to him when I'm gone. I also want to be able to visit him in the hospital—no—disregard that last one.

I love him more than anything, and he expresses his own love to me through his eyes—ANYONE can see that.

That's discrimination!

...Why won't that kid need parental consent? The fancy law-talkin' site seemed to indicate that under the age of 18, both sexes need parental sign-off...

Correct: I was thrown off by a comma, and I'm still not sure where that comma should have been placed.

OK:
IF a 14 year-old boy wants to get married, and asked you to be his Best Man, (in a wedding to that 54 year-old former priest), and there WAS permission granted, would you do it?

Some background:

This 14 year-old was adopted at age 11 by a homosexual male couple. The "wife" died of unknown causes, and the "husband" is presently dying from AIDS.

That New Hampshire survivor of Wedded Bliss—bonded in Holy Matrimony—has granted permission for the boy to marry his priest, a former "acquaintance" from his own youth. (And a frequent visitor to the household).

The boy, unfortunately, has his own "health issues" that aren't being disclosed. (But it's apparent that health insurance is the major concern for this marriage in this "family").

Would you be "Best Man"?

450,000 died—for THIS?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Don't be so sure. I will bet our grandparents never thought they would live to see the day where men marry men and women marry women. In 50 years, you MAY be able to marry your dog!

But in 50 years, my dog will be dead...Holy Cow!...especially in 50 "dog-years". How long WILL it be? Slavery took centuries to get right.

I want to see where this so-called Society is headed NOW! While my dog and I are still alive and love one another!

NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!

I want to marry my dog NOW! He LOVES me. He's a GOOD boy! We can't WAIT fifty years. I LOVE him! He loves me! We want to get married NOW!

NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!



Forum | by Dr. Radut