Comments on: Let’s Call It ‘Untraditional Marriage’

By: vampire games

vampire games — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:52:08 +0000

Websites we think you should visit…

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……

By: garment sales worldwide

garment sales worldwide — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:08:16 +0000

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

By: Leo

Leo — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:32:45 +0000

Then take the child aspect out of it. Apply the logic of the state court cases that have imposed same-sex marriage to situations involving adult siblings, an adult parent and an adult child, or polygamous relationship involving adults. The reason of all those cases would require that two biological brothers who present themselves at the courthouse be given a marriage license. If you decide that the traditional definition of marriage is now longer valid because gender is somehow an artificial divide, then why set the bar at such similar constructs like siblingry and number of people in the relationship.

By: Jonah West

Jonah West — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:40:41 +0000

Also, I just noticeed something else, It should be "Get a room you two" not "Get a room you too" Two=2, too=also. Sorry I had go all "Grammar police" on you.

And I just relized I had used bad grammar… I fail.

By: Tim Is Gay

Tim Is Gay — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:23:34 +0000

Tim Slagle is so, so gay.

By: Jonah West

Jonah West — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:56:38 +0000

See, what you did there is something called a "Logical Fallacy" A fallacy is is when some statement in an argument goes against the basic rules of logic. What you said there with "How convenient that you're straight. It must feel natural for you to want to settle down with a woman if you haven't already."
you've commited a couple of different fallacies.
#1 Appeal to authority/association fallacy: You're argument is basicly "You're not gay so you can't understand" Underthat logic no one can criticize anything they don't already know or aren't already a part of. Its foolish and illogical.
#2 Ad hominem attack: You're not refuting his statement, you're just infering that he's a bigot by saying he feels that because he's straight.

By: Jonah West

Jonah West — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:40:38 +0000

No, we share our toys, we just refuse to let you put a Barbie dress on G I Joe or marry him to Ken.

By: Jonah West

Jonah West — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:40:26 +0000

No, we share our toys, we just refuse to let you but a Barbie dress on G I Joe or marry him to Ken.

By: Jonah West

Jonah West — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:26:24 +0000

Ms Carol Mu has yet to reply to any of us that have asked for examples of homosexual relationships in the Bible outside Sodom and Gemorah. So far, no response. Maybe its because there aren't any. Or she's trying to drudge up the tired old story that various straight men in the Bible were gay and then take scriptures out of context to prove it. Either way, it amounts to the fact that Bible doesn't condone homosexuality.

By: Attmay

Attmay — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:00:19 +0000

You "straight" "people" are like spoiled children who won't share their toys even though they're getting drool and boogers all over them.