Skip to comments.
All of the BS About Gay Marriage earned me a big ol' ZOT!
Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240, 241-253 next last
To: two134711
Oops. Well I guess I won’t be seeing you around...under that user name, at least.
201
posted on
09/08/2012 8:25:52 PM PDT
by
two134711
(I am Conservative, no longer a Republican.)
To: Why So Serious
Good one Lil Jeremiah. Marriage has an age limit, as could a civil union. In fact I believe that in most states you have to 18 to enter into a contract. Besides, mentally ill perverts already have access to our children. It is called the public school system.
I realize your stupidity on FR is now cured, but I will respond anyway. I didn’t mention age limits, my opposition to civil unions as a gateway drug for homo/fag/perv marriage still stands undefiled by your intellect. And you apparently think mentally ill sex perverts should have even more access to our children via fag marriage, then. What a jewel you are.
202
posted on
09/08/2012 8:26:17 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: Texan5
Ive been here since Oct 2000, and have a pretty thick skin, and I do try to be civil and respectful-but ansel12 had my mouse pointer hovering over the abuse button for the first time in many months over his insults. I wanted to alert you to some guy 'insulting' you in post 195, you should hit the abuse button.
203
posted on
09/08/2012 8:28:09 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
To: two134711
Of course the people of the states have the right to regulate marriage, so long as they exist within this parameter (eg. common-law marriages, age restrictions, consanguinous marriage between cousins). But to declare that there should be no federal, state or any governmental promotion of one-man/one-woman marriage is ahistorical and not part of American legal tradition. You said that very well, I'm going to try and remember some of that language.
204
posted on
09/08/2012 8:34:13 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
To: Texan5
Thank you, mod-to be fair, the thread started as what appeared to be a discussion/friendly debate on whether states selling marriage licenses encourages homosexual "marriage" or not-shouldn't have been radioactive. I've been here since Oct 2000, and have a pretty thick skin, and I do try to be civil and respectful-but ansel12 had my mouse pointer hovering over the abuse button for the first time in many months over his insults.
There's nothing fair about gays and their pals attempting to push their garbage on Free Republic. There is nothing fair about homosexuals attempting to force taxpayers to pay hard earned money in benefits supporting homosexuals.
There is nothing friendly about you pushing for such unions on this site, whether by agreeing with gay activist trolls, or by hovering your mouse pointer - over the abuse button against conservative Freepers.
There is no need for you to share the thickness of your skin or any other such anatomical morphology here. What is necessary is for you to understand that this conservative site has a zero tolerance policy for anyone pushing the gay agenda, including here since Oct 2000.
Thank you.
To: Why So Serious
206
posted on
09/08/2012 8:44:46 PM PDT
by
Stonewall Jackson
("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
To: darkwing104; ansel12
Pro-homosexual agenda troll
Why So Serious just found out that there are some things that we take very seriously here on FR.
A big round of applause to ansel12 for hanging in there and getting the troll to reveal his true nature.
207
posted on
09/08/2012 9:20:17 PM PDT
by
Stonewall Jackson
("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
To: Texan5; Why So Serious
The post-republic Romans turned marriage into an affair of state, too, complete with homosexual marriage Not according to wiki. "in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them" "Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear."
Here is another source mentioning polygamy and marriage in history, and in Rome.
History of Polygamy
Thats the question Witte is wrestling with in his new book. He shows that the West has prescribed monogamous marriage for 2,500 years, and criminalized polygamy for 1,750 years. Polygamy was a capital crime in the West from the ninth to the 19th centuries.
Polygamy prohibitions, he says, are both pre-Christian in origin and post-Christian in application. Roman law criminalized polygamy before Christianity was established and Enlightenment liberals were the most powerful defenders of the modern common law aversion to polygamy, he says.
208
posted on
09/08/2012 9:32:25 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
To: Stonewall Jackson
Thanks, he was weird guy.
209
posted on
09/08/2012 9:37:35 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
To: Why So Serious; 230FMJ; 50mm; A.Hun; abigailsmybaby; AFPhys; Aircop_2006; AliVeritas; Allegra; ...
How about a little history lesson from the Viking Kitties...
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
210
posted on
09/08/2012 9:46:42 PM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: ansel12
Indeed he was. He actually reminds me of a couple of my coworkers. They love nothing more than to stir up trouble, but if you try to counterattack, they run crying to the HR office. I guess he didn’t realize (or care) that the “HR office” here at FR (no offense Admin Moderators) isn’t run by a bunch of politically correct paper-pushers like so many HR offices are.
211
posted on
09/08/2012 9:52:03 PM PDT
by
Stonewall Jackson
("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
To: ansel12
Thanks. And thank you for being a steadfast defender of marriage on this site.
212
posted on
09/08/2012 9:52:37 PM PDT
by
two134711
(I am Conservative, no longer a Republican.)
To: Why So Serious; TheOldLady; Old Sarge
Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people](There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
Well, you've certainly managed to conclusively demonstrate the truth of that, by golly.
213
posted on
09/08/2012 10:17:30 PM PDT
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
To: Why So Serious; 50mm; darkwing104; Arrowhead1952; Darksheare; TheOldLady; Lady Jag; Chode; ...
THOU HAST FELT THE FURY OF ROB,
AND ART NOW CONSIGNED TO THE FLAMES!!
214
posted on
09/08/2012 11:05:35 PM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
To: Why So Serious
Where did that come from?
215
posted on
09/08/2012 11:51:16 PM PDT
by
AliVeritas
(God's will be done. Pray, Pray, Pray, Penance, Penance, Penance.)
To: Texan5
To: Ransomed
Yes, quite true. Thanks for that input.
To: Why So Serious
Point well made, and extremely well taken. Thanks kindly. SJ
To: avacado
Because I am now single I pay $4000 dollars a year more in federal income taxes. Get the damn government out of the marriage business/social engineering!!! You pay only $4K a year to be single? Hmmm. I know a good deal when I see it.
219
posted on
09/09/2012 5:16:53 AM PDT
by
central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Why So Serious; Old Sarge; TheOldLady; darkwing104; Darksheare; 50mm
Where to begin... OK, I'll start at the end. You're gone. Whoopee!!!! Time for a little celebrating. What I don't get. though, is why you're so serious and argumentative. You sure didn't live up to your screen name. But then again, I suspect you had "issues" that just won't let you alone. Oh, well...
Satchmo ZOT!!
220
posted on
09/09/2012 5:17:26 AM PDT
by
bcsco
(Bourbon gets better with age...I age better with Bourbon.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240, 241-253 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson