"Do you remember when we met? I cleaned your rooms and washed your floors, built community, opened some doors. You changed my life. I'll never forget the day we met. I'll cherish your community sprit until the day I die."

These were the vows she took with the imposing structure. Unfortunately her pleas went unheeded and the the warehouse was demolished, much to the plight of the hapless addicts and anonymous sex practicioners who will have nowhere to engage in their innocent little pastimes.

I wish I could have been there to stand up for the minorities and poor people who were oppressed by the demolition of this pristine, albeit rundown and vacant, monument to liberty for the underclasses of the City of Seattle.

"" "With the delicate nature of Washington state and the attempt to legalize gay marriage, I find her saying it's a gay marriage disrespectful," Phoenix Lopez told KOMO.""

I agree. This event is going to have severe ramifications on the attempt by the forward thinking people of Washington in getting a common sense measure like state-sanctioned homosexuality passed. I am very disturbed by the fact that there are people taking advantage of the oppression, the horror, the pain, that homosexuals went through the first 150 years of this nations existence to get recognition of the authenticity of their love.

Gay men and women didnt toil in bondage so that some tart in a dress could marry masonry.

They didnt march on Washington in '63 so that some bimbo could pull some cheap stunt to protest the demolition of a vacant building.

Hundreds of gay-lynch victims didnt die so that she could make a mockery of their sacrifice.

They braved police dogs and fire-hoses so that they too could sit at the straights-only side of the diner and speak in higher than normal tones about how hot that guy on the left is.

They endured beatings, police intimidation, and death threats so that they could wear there jock-straps in public without fear of mockery or intimidation.

They didnt do that so some political activist could cash in on their hard work. No!

Doesnt this woman have any respect? Doesnt she know what a marriage is? How dare she bring politics into the equation. Who is she to hijack an entire legacy?

AmericanPLY:

Are you drunk?

This woman did not marry a heterosexual man who went all priapic at the mere sound of her name - she decided what she wanted to marry. Usually that's good for 126 Biblically-charged posts from you.

Or if she didn't really intend to enter into a lifelong relationship with the structure, she used the holy, ordained-by-God framework of matrimony as a platform for publicity, instead of its intended purpose - cranking out good little Republican voters who will gladly spend their days figuring out how to be consumers in spite of the fact they're not paid jack shit. Usually, you'd be sparring with libs here about that for a good two days.

You feeling all right?

""Or if she didn't really intend to enter into a lifelong relationship with the structure, she used the holy, ordained-by-God framework of matrimony as a platform for publicity, ""

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with her? Manipulating a sacred thing like gay-marriage for personal gain. Is there no decency?

And the gays ridicule people when they disagree with gays right to marry. Well I guess the question what next do you allow to get married has been answered.
Bet this nut job is a liberal.
Maybey she can legaly marry a building in Uragay, Whore says its much better than here.

AmericanPLY and Patron -

Get a room.

I just thought the fact that she was protesting the demolition of a rundown warehouse in favor of apartments was hilarious.

Careful Patron, she's looking for a fight. The heterocentric focus of society is having its effect tonight.

#8 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore
what truth hurts? What no gay words of wisdom. I'm shocked.
This nut case liberal realy showed how wacked out you people are. Next thing you know she'll sue the state for killing her uh spouse? Shit like this sure wouldn't happen in Uragay Ha LMFAO.

One things for sure, the good people of Uragay wouldnt force those innocent homeless drug addicts to go to a shelter. They have the right to shoot up in any abandaned industrial structure of their choosing. Why dont those elitist assholes in Seattle understand that?

So how was the honeymoon?

This gal needs meds and a jacket with a weekend or more at Western State.

Yea washington state is pretty liberal too. Now we'll never know if they would have made good parents,when they adopted.Was the builing the butch? Maybe Whore can enligthen me on how this Gay shit works.

Seattle woman recently exchanged one-sided wedding vows with an abandoned warehouse building that is set to be demolished to make way for a new apartment building.

When the building gets demolished will she legally be a widow?

Yes CC--she will be able to collect on the life insurance policy and whatever other benes WA state gives such arrangements.

You're kidding, right?

If a "life" insurance policy is taken out for, say, $15 million - should that be the appraised value of the warehouse/land -- you mean she would get all that money if the building is leveled?

The lawyers will have a field day with this one!

Well Maybe Mr. Tato Head can explain how this is Ok. If it happens in nature it must be OK. Seen my stupid dog hupping a beach ball once, so I guess you can marry an inanimate object.

"You're kidding, right?"

Yes, she's kidding. Just like the word "married" had to be in quotes (everywhere but in the headline, it seems).

CC--I am so kidding--;o)

I should have put the smile on the end of that comment.

It's not even her building--she's a nutcase.

(No Offense to our DR Nutcase).

...she decided what she wanted to marry

marrying a "what" is a far cry from exchanging wedding vows with a "who"

Don't know why, but that made sense to me when I typed it.

#20

Actually my fault for just jumping in and not bothering to read the article.

FF for #21 CC lol

This woman did not marry a heterosexual man who went all priapic at the mere sound of her name - she decided what she wanted to marry
#5 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore
Whre did you run off and hide. You started to defend your gay friend ,and ran off when you realized how stupid you were.
She decided what she wanted to marry, just like the nuts that decide to marry animals once the flood gates are open. Here is your proof try and deny it.
Love it, you and the other jackass friends tried to pound this gay marriage shit down everyone throat the other day. Why you so quiet now?

Yes, she's kidding. Just like the word "married" had to be in quotes (everywhere but in the headline, it seems).

#19 | Posted by Danforth at

Whoa, no pulling the wool over your eyes.

"just like the nuts that decide to marry animals once the flood gates are open"

Sorry, pal. You just admitted you don't understand the concept of consent. Might as well hang the "I'M A MORON" sign around yourself.

"try and deny it."

Well, that's pretty easy: it was a stunt, and she didn't really believe she was "marrying" the building. Did that fact go over your head?

I think its generally understood that she didnt intend to actually marry the building. It was more or less a political stunt, just like gay marriage. Politics. Doesnt have anything to do with love and commitment, there is nothing standing in the way of two consenting adults living together as a couple.

So, in a way, what she is doing is no different than gay marriage.

Gay marriage is a stunt.
Then why were the gays so upset when she did the stunt. Because they know its going to make people realize that it just opens a big can of worms , once they allow gay marriage.
You can try and spin this and defend it all day long. But don't think for a minute that some one will not try and marry a goat or little boy etc. once the gate is open.
Why don't you use your spin on Whore who actually defened this nuts right to marry the building,that is till she realized where that was headed.Or did that part go over your head.
So run along and champion some other pro obama nonsense or gay bullshit.Or sick around and lecture me on bible, or abortions ,gay rights, and how Obama made the blind see or watever other stupid shit you babble.

"But don't think for a minute that some one will not try and marry a goat or little boy etc. once the gate is open."

Godwin's Law ought to have a tangent.

Sorry, pal. You just admitted you don't understand the concept of consent. Might as well hang the "I'M A MORON" sign around yourself
#26 | Posted by Danforth
When you whack yourself off every lonely day of your life. does your dick give you consent?

Watch he file in probate for custody of the lot it was on.

A Seattle woman recently exchanged one-sided wedding vows

Stopped reading there as it is poorly written. You can't EXCHANGE something ONE-SIDED. It would also be "VOW," not plural as only one vow was made.

But thats not how SHE sees it Kanrei. The building might not have said yes, but then again, it didnt say no either? Why deny her the right to be happy because of your conservative outlook on grammar?

Consent is key. Ask a building "do you accept this woman," and if it answers then you can marry it. She said yes, the building stood mute.

Two timing bitch will be sleeping with another building almost immediately. She should mourn for at least a year.

Straight marriage is a stunt.

#35--now that was funny Danni lol

Straight marriage is a stunt.

Ooh, there you go again Danni!

Trying to turn Britney Spear's quickie 55 hours marriage into something cheap and tawdry!!

Denying the sanct...

BWA HAHAHAHAH!! BWA HAHAHAHA!!

Sorry, couldn't finish the sentence without breaking up.

Try that again...

*ahem*

In conclusion...

Consent is key. Ask a building "do you accept this woman," and if it answers then you can marry it. She said yes, the building stood mute.

#34 | Posted by kanrei at

Its a building, it cant give consent according to YOUR standard. I mean, it has no vocal cords! It would surely WANT to get married to her, besides that if it didnt want to at the time it would certainly grow into the relationship. One thing is for sure the building certainly didnt say no. Maybe it was thinking it over?

This consent thing appears very skewed in favor of certain individuals.

Straight marriage is a stunt.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-02 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

WTF do you mean by that? I assume you are making a funny?

One thing is for sure the building certainly didnt say no

It stood mute. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

"WTF do you mean by that?" Up the thread some clown was saying the same thing about gay marriage. If one is a stunt then so is the other. Marriage is a stunt.

Marriage is a stunt.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-02 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only for losers such as yourself. Marriage is the foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of society. You couldn't function in one so now you condemn the act. No great surprise. I am sure you failed at most things in your life and now blame those who don't fail by attacking their beliefs to prop yourself up. Sad and pitiful.

Up the thread some clown was saying the same thing about gay marriage. If one is a stunt then so is the other. Marriage is a stunt.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-02
Marring a buliding and calling it a gay marriage is not a stunt? Gay may in it,s entirety is a stunt!
Talk about clowns, what the hell do you call the circus animals in gay parades. The more you dumb ass gays and liberals behave this way the harder it is for main stream people to take you serious.
I still fail to see anyone explain away the fact that this idiot married a builing in a gay ceromoney. This is the kind of crap that is predicted to happen when gay marriage is leagal.
Don't say isolated case, no consent,etc. that crap won't fly.With over 300 million people in the us how many more are as stupid as this Lib. Ok danni and whore make three so far.

"Marriage is the foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of society."

I guess that's why Newt Gingrich had so many of them. Marriage today isn't a stunt, it's more of a joke. It doesn't really exist, with no-fault divorce marriage is a memory.

"Why you so quiet now?"

Because I know better than to argue with that rotting lump of misfiring neurons between your ears.

#46 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore
Unable to defend your comments. Understood,

FTA: "Her saying it's a gay marriage sets the community back with Christians and politicians and gives them a chance to say, 'See, we told you, they're going to want to marry everything if we give them the opportunity,'" added fellow protestor Johnny McCollum-Blair. "Having compassion against something you love, I understand, but to call it a gay union is irresponsible."

THIS.

[yourenothelping]

Marring a building and calling it a gay marriage is not a stunt?

Of course it's a stunt, retard, it's called a 'publicity stunt'.

And it worked in that it brought some attention to the plight of po' folks in Seattle being squeezed out due to gentrification.

Gay may in it,s entirety is a stunt!

Gonna assume "gay may" = "gay marriage" is yer warped little mind.

Gay marriage is no more a stunt than straight marriage.

Just like gay sex is no more moral or immoral than straight sex.

Talk about clowns, what the hell do you call the circus animals in gay parades.

[wtfamireading?]

The more you dumb ass gays and liberals behave this way the harder it is for main stream people to take you serious.

Gays and liberals *are* mainstream.

It's your little hate cult that's going the way of the dodo.

I still fail to see anyone explain away the fact that this idiot married a builing in a gay ceromoney.

Again, See: "publicity stunt".

You fail to see lots more than you actually see, as a rule.

Spud's noticed.

This is the kind of crap that is predicted to happen when gay marriage is leagal.

Yeah, Bozo, that's why gay people were counter protesting her li'l protest.

Didn't read the article did you?

Don't say isolated case, no consent,etc. that crap won't fly.

WTF are you talking about?

With over 300 million people in the us how many more are as stupid as this Lib. Ok danni and whore make three so far.

*rolls eyes*

Stay classy, Rtard.

Here's the deal, snowflake.

You are batshiat insane, you can't spell to save your life and you've yet to make a single rational argument.

Why the fuck should anyone ever take you "serious"?

You sound like you traded your lithium prescription for 'ludes a while back.

Be Well.

Tato head makes four.

Tato head makes four.

Counting the number of people who've pointed out what a pointless twatwaffle you are?

Is that greater or lesser than your IRL count?

Be Well.

There is no limit to these screwy people that piss in the face of *normal* marriage. We thought it was a joke when folks talked about marrying their pet chicken. Now we can see that this is a reality with these morons. Most *normal* people fondly remember mom baking cookies and dad coming home from work.
WHo wants to bring a mother named Peter to the PTA meeting? No wonder kids are a mess.

OK, Dethspud; I'm on tenterhooks here, what car did you buy? I'm not being sarcastic...I really wanna know.

"Unable to defend your comments."

I am plenty able to defend my comments - so long as I'm dealing with a rational person.

You are, in Spuddie's phrase, batshiat insane, and so with you, there is no use even trying.

Well you can try and justify it,buy attacking the messenger. Seems to be your only way out. Nothing I've said is not true.Post #5 is Whore defending the nuts right to marry what ever she wants! Says it all, but no you are trying to twist it so now gays are main stream and I'm the one who's insane. Good luck with that.

I guess that's why Newt Gingrich had so many of them. Marriage today isn't a stunt, it's more of a joke. It doesn't really exist, with no-fault divorce marriage is a memory.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-02 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, for losers such as yourself. YOU and your kind are the true enemies of civilization. Bring others down so that you can make yourself look good. Bring civilized behavior down so that you can justify and rationalize ANY behavior YOU see fit. Mantra of the left for, well FOREVER.

You are the joke DANNI. Marriage is and ALWAYS will be the foundation of a civilized society. The institution is and never has been the problem, only weak and sad individuals such as yourself make the act or commitment go sour. Congrats on failing society. Newt too.

"Marriage is and ALWAYS will be the foundation of a civilized society."
Go for it, I'm not against marriage but I just can't pretend that most "marriages" are really marriages.

what car did you buy? I'm not being sarcastic...I really wanna know.

Still waiting on the fucktards from ICBC to cut me a cheque.

Spud's the one on tenderhooks, atm.

They are sooo gonna screw me.

>.<

Be Well.

Marriage is and ALWAYS will be the foundation of a civilized society."

Of course it is, which is why so-called "Marriage Defenders" are not marriage advocates.

They are "Marriage Attackers".

A married couple, gay or straight, is a more stable economic unit and any sane society will always try to encourage that.

Just like so-called "Pro-life" people are anything but, they are really just anti abortion, anti female autonomy.

The politically correct language revisionists on the right are actually far worse than those found on the left in many ways.

Be Well.

"Marriage is and ALWAYS will be the foundation of a civilized society."
Go for it, I'm not against marriage but I just can't pretend that most "marriages" are really marriages.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-03 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most? Define most - greater than 50% or 75%? "Most" people are not gay. "Most" people are not black either. WTF does that mean then?

The politically correct language revisionists on the right are actually far worse than those found on the left in many ways.

Be Well.

#58 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag: EPIC FAIL

Marriage is between man and woman - the pc left, like yerself, needed to revise DOWN the definition to fit the historically unacceptable behavior to normalize it.

Same with pro-deathers - or as you and the rest of the morally decrept left like to call it - pro "choice". Again - refit the definition to normalize the behavior.

Marriage and abortion have had the same definition from the get-go - the "revision" was on the left side, not the right. And for good measure, canadian beer sucks and I LOVE female anatomy - oh, you said autonomy.

Marriage is between man and woman - the pc left, like yerself, needed to revise DOWN the definition to fit the historically unacceptable behavior to normalize it.

In what significant way is a marriage between two gay people different than a marriage between straight people?

Difficulty: Some gay people have kids and some straight marriages are childless by choice or circumstance.

Even the leaders of the religious right acknowledge that this is a losing issue for them over time.

The only people who seem dead set against gay marriage are, for the most part, really old.

Or, in your case just really dumb and with no moral center.

At some point this becomes waaay more of a vote loser than a vote getter and then the GOP (If they still even exist) have to find some other bullshiat social wedge issue to try to stop progress on and then the cycle will continue until you kids are eventually dragged kicking and screaming into the light of rationality, true morality, economic justice and social progress.

Being more stubborn than mules, Spud realizes this might take a while but hey, it's fighting the good fight so even if it takes a few more generations it'll still be worth it.

Same with pro-deathers - or as you and the rest of the morally decrept left like to call it - pro "choice". Again - refit the definition to normalize the behavior.

LOL.

You can be anti-abortion and pro choice.

You can't be "Pro life" and not be anti-choice.

Your definition fails, as usual.

This is Spud's surprised face.

0__0

Be Well.

A married couple, gay or straight, is a more stable economic unit and any sane society will always try to encourage that.
That means danni is insane see #45
They are "Marriage Attackers".
They defend marriage to stop the stupid shit like this article is about.
Just like so-called "Pro-life" people are anything but, they are really just anti abortion, anti female autonomy.
First off learn to spell, second pro -Choice has nothing to do with the baby's choice. Did you get it's consent to kill it?
The politically correct language revisionists on the right are actually far worse than those found on the left in many ways.
Only in you sick twisted mind.
Be Well.
Take your meds your sick!

In what significant way is a marriage between two gay people different than a marriage between straight people?
There a stretch, two harry guys fucking each other in the ass= straight?
Difficulty: Some gay people have kids and some straight marriages are childless by choice or circumstance.
What gays have butt babies, or do you mean they adopt and screw the kids head up, and cause him problems at school by being teased.
The only people who seem dead set against gay marriage are, for the most part, really old.
Says who?
You can't be "Pro life" and not be anti-choice.
??

#61 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: More of the same FAIL

So a couple of siblings who want to marry but not have children is A-OK by your "definition" of marriage. Right pud?

And it's just silly that someone on your side uses the term "moral center".

Pro-lifers are the ONLY ones who believe in choice - REAL choice that is - they are for choosing LIFE - not for choosing to accept responsibilty for one too many at the local dive and fucking someone such as yerself realizing what kind of alien may pop out of their bodies ten months later. The real "choice" happens before any fertilization. And I believe women SHOULD have that choice - they can choose to:

Keep legs closed or
Keep legs open and use birth control - before killing life

That's a CHOICE which EVERY woman can make which will not kill life which is NOT hers.

How is that not a choice pud?

Your example is a non-sequitor - the real statement should have read" you cannot be pro-abortion and pro-life.

In what significant way is a marriage between two gay people different than a marriage between straight people?

Difficulty: Some gay people have kids,not between themselves, and some straight marriages are childless by choice or circumstance.

#61 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

FTFY

It is irrelevant, the matter of childless straight couples. Gays can't have children.

Some use this example to justify their opinion about gay marrage and it is wrong.

You say it is right.

Don says it is wrong.

And that shitbag,is all that matters in the gay marrage discussion,as to it being wrong.

rwd

"It is irrelevant, the matter of childless straight couples. Gays can't have children."

Nonsense; you're just painted into a corner. If you deny gays marriage based on their inability to bear children, why not the same for infertile or post-menopausal couples?

Your example is a non-sequitor - the real statement should have read" you cannot be pro-abortion and pro-life.

#64 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

Um that is where you are wrong,except the part about being pro abortion.

I find abortion tolerable to the point that if outlawed only the poor will suffer from the law while the rich will find ways to have them with impunity.

I know there is a conflict with that statement and am willing to live with it.

rwd

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-03 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Like I said Dan, read my whole statement and not cherry pick.

rwd

So a couple of siblings who want to marry but not have children is A-OK by your "definition" of marriage. Right pud?

Naw, Spud's seen too many Goya paintings to want that.

Aivaz reportedly responded in verse, quoting the Cat Power song "Sea of Love."
"Come with me my love, to the sea, the sea of love. I want to tell you how much I love you."

Ok...first of all Sea of Love is not a Cat Power song. Cat Power covered that song. This is not to say that Chan Marshall (AKA Cat Power) is not extremely talented and is smoking hot. And I believe she is still getting the hot beef injection from Eddie Vedder.

Gays can't have children.

Wrong.

Just because gay sex doesn't lead to procreation doesn't mean gays can't have children.

Spud knows gay men who came out of the closet late and have kids from previous marriages.

Spud knows gay couples who've adopted.

Spud knows lesbian couples with kids from previous marriages and the turkey baster thing.

So again, wrong.

Be Well.

"read my whole statement and not cherry pick."

Where you conclude it's wrong because you say it's wrong?!?

Gee. With logic like that, who needs to debate?

How can a woman marry a building? A building can't talk and say "I do". A building can't sign a marriage certificate. It is stupid.

"It is irrelevant, the matter of childless straight couples."

On the contrary: you wouldn't deny marriage to an infertile couple, nor would you claim adoptive families don't have "children"...

...unless of course the couple in question is gay.

#69 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Adopted fail as his first name

Nice try pud. Keep rationalizing and redefining.

Woman has vagina
Woman has control of said vagina
Woman allows or disallows control of what enters her vagina

If she allows a penis in her vagina, she could become pregnant
Her choice

Sounds very much like a fucking choice to me you pro-death shithead.

I don't care if a woman fucks or not - I care if she decides to terminate a life that IS NOT hers.

The argument on this site is pointless. The pro-death crowd will always shout out "control" is what the right wants over a woman. If THAT is what YOU really believe, the IQ study most certainly is flawed and incorrect. Of course, HR huffington and MSNBC have told you this is the case so it is the only talking point you have - demonize the good so the bad look better.

So again, wrong.

#71 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok pants on head stupid, let me explain it to you real slow.

Gay couples cannot have children between themselves.

Is that clear or should I type slower next time.

rwd

"Gay couples cannot have children between themselves."

Neither can post-menopausal couples. Are you going to deny them marriage too, or just the gays?

Woman allows or disallows control of what enters her vagina.

Ever heard of rape?

You still haven't addressed the birth control fail issue.

See also: Ectopic pregnancies and the like.

I don't care if a woman fucks or not - I care if she decides to terminate a life that IS NOT hers.

Until that "life" progresses past cytoblast and zygote and foetus status to viability it is a potentially life threatening parasite that has no rights beyond those it's host cedes to it.

You are right in one sense though.

YOU are trying to control a life altering decision for a life that IS NOT YOURS.

A woman's autonomy.

Not yours.

Can not have.

"Gay couples cannot have children between themselves."

So?
If you ever get near a point, make it.

Lots of gay folks have completely normal kids.
Better check up on child abuse stats sometime, dimwit.

Gay couples cannot have children between themselves.

Already addressed.

Just because gay sex doesn't lead to procreation doesn't mean gays can't have children.
Spud knows gay men who came out of the closet late and have kids from previous marriages.
Spud knows gay couples who've adopted.
Spud knows lesbian couples with kids from previous marriages and the turkey baster thing.
So again, wrong.

Reading comprehension is really not your thing, is it?

And as other people have mentioned there are couples on the traditional marriage side who are childless by choice or happenstance or age as well making your faulty argument even more laughable.

You cite a difference without a distinction and then act like you made a point beyond illustrating how completely hung up you are on denying civil rights to your fellow citizens.

Why do you do that?

Be Well.

It doesn't do to think what E Pluribus Asshole might do with a pony if he got one.... after he had it spayed, of course.

Where you conclude it's wrong because you say it's wrong?!?
#74 | Posted by Danforth

Where do you conclude it's right Dan,because you say it is?

My post states very clearly my opinion about gay marrage.

It is not open to debate,it simply is.

Assuming that you're a pro gay marrage guy, I am not going to try to convince you otherwise because it simply goes on in an endless back and forth with no one agreeing with the other.

Lets just agree to disagree ok?

Here's the rub, I am not against gay people and their relationships,I simply don't care.

I think though that they should have some legal recourse that protects a partner in the event of death or otherwise of the other that recognises their legal right as a common law partnership that protects the survior from family coming in and claiming inheritance while leaving the living partner with nothing.

That's just wrong.

rwd

#80 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice twist why do you do that?

Adopting,,turkey basting,kids from another marrage... all with the opposite sex. How fucking dumb are you?

I already said the issue of gays not being able to have children between themselves is a non issue with me.

I was very clear, why can't you see that?

Try reading comprehension instead of assuming and you might rise to the level asshole in the future.

rwd

#79 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-03 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another dumbass that thinks two guys ass fucking came make a child.

jeez

rwd

#78 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-02-03 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes - rape accounts for at best 1%, so if I was for the sake of argument say that we give them a "pass", do the other 99% still have a choice? Knowing that birth control is not 100% safe. You make the choice to drive or fly knowing that it is not 100% safe and you have to live with the results. When your plane crashes, did someone knowingly deny away your right to life? You weighed the risk with the reward.

Woman wants sex
Woman knows that it could result in pregnancy even with birth control
Woman chooses the 60 minutes of pleasure (2 minutes for spuds wife) over the chance of creating life
Woman gets pregnant

Simple. Don't want kids=don't fuck. There is always the back door - especially for those libs who love homosexual sex so much. Up yer bum no babies!

Knowing that birth control is not 100% safe. You make the choice to drive or fly knowing that it is not 100% safe and you have to live with the results.

So just to be clear you only think rape victims should get abortions?

If a woman has a birth control method fail she's shit out of luck by your lights?

Do you know what Pennyroyal tea is?

Basically it comes down to this you think every sperm and egg that mix and mingle and make a zygote must be carried to term because that life's right to be born supercedes the right's of it's host/mother to flush it from their bodies.

Spud thinks you are nuts.

Particularly in terms of the GOP's traditional response to the poor and needy which is to say, "Fuck 'em, I got mine".

So you guys are for abortion policies that would insure a larger number of unwanted babies being born into poverty and despair but you are also for economic policies that would make it tougher for the family to survive.

That about it?

"Another dumbass that thinks two guys ass fucking came make a child."

Well, Don, it is the only explanation for you, TwoPLY and a few others around here.

Ya li'l stinkers.

#87 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore
Still waiting for you to defend the nut case right to "marry what ever she wants". Can't do it ?

"Still waiting for you to defend the nut case right to "marry what ever she wants"."

Don't hold your breath.

On second thought, do.

Spud's still waiting for PatronizingAss to put a plastic bag over his head in order to prove how safe carbon dioxide is.

He could livestream it for 10 minutes online and convince the entire world that Global Warming is a scam.

Spud would watch that.

Love this "you won't make my stupid argument therefore you are stupid" argument.

Ah, the RW and their love of circular logic.

It's such a vicious circle.

Lulzy though.

Be Well.

Well, Don, it is the only explanation for you, TwoPLY and a few others around here.

Ya li'l stinkers.

Don and TwoPly are butt babies?

Well, that would explain their affection for santorum.

Be Well.