Why So Serious?
Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
Hmm.
And, pray tell, what ‘good points’ were there about homosexual marriage?
Would you, please, enlighten us to what you thought was ‘good’?
It seems I must apologize for the lack of clarity in my post to 'Why So Serious.'
I made NO reference to anything "good" about homosexual marriage.
If you inferred that from my comment I must ask your forgiveness for my lack of clarity.
If you will re-read my comment in #222, you will note that I referred to a "good thread."
IMO, the topic of this thread was about the Fed Gov Tax Laws and its inequality towards certain groups. Groups which are defined by Federal Statutes. It somehow was hi-jacked by those who chose to interpret the original posters query in a different manner.
I like good spirited debate and discussion of topics. IMO we can learn a great amount from some members of FR and I very much appreciate that fact.
I DO NOT LIKE passive-aggressive name-calling and intentional mis-posting of a fellow posters comments. Those who either intentionally, or due to a undiagnosed cognition problem, harass and troll by means of out-of-context use of fellow posters comments degrade the entire machine here. IMO.
That part, I am not fond of.
Pray for America, and keep your guns ready.
You said it was a darn good trhead with well thought out comments.
“Sorry to see you get the hammer for this one. Actually, IMO, I thinks it pretty much sucks swamp fluid that it happened. “
You are perfectly okay with pushing pro-Homosexual BS.
“Hope to see ya back!”
No.
“We darn sure need more people thinking with their brain and not their...hindparts. “
Funny, that’s what the homosexuals do, think with their hindparts.
REAL-ly.
It was a good zot, and a thread meant to attack marriage.
Why So Serious?
When things collapse seriously many fags will die, as there won’t be Uncle to pay for their AIDS medicine, and then all this will be academic.
Seriously.
When people are actually hungry, life will look a bit different.
I can only think of two that would make if SHTF.
Then again many of my friends might do well as they wealthy.
Who knows.
If we have to go primeval I’m only allowing the two I can think of in my camp. They have many of the same skills, tough mind and spirit to make themselves useful to a group of like spirits.
I ain’t gonna hold their homoness against them if they want to be a team player.
If they are nothing more than dead weight, it won’t take long for that reality to place.
I think we all read your pro-homo support accurately.
It is an appealing thought and one that C.S. Lewis himself proposed mid-20th-century (civil marriage and ecclesiastical marriage). I’d be OK with it, but a pro-gay-marriage friend of mine responded that “straights won’t want to go from having the government call them ‘married’ to calling them ‘civilly united.’” who knows.
(Guy’s been zotted, but I can’t resist)
As to your reference to blacks being defined as 2/3 of a person: You appear not to realize that the “2/3” reflects a compromise between (and IMO largely FAVORING) southern-colony slaveholders on the one hand, and non-slave-holding northerners.
It was the SOUTHERNERS (slaveholders) who wanted to count their black slaves as full “persons” for purposes of electoral votes and apportionment of congressional districts. Of course, the slaves would not get to vote, but that just gave slaveholders all the more power.
It was the NORTHERNERS who wanted slaves not to be counted, recognizing that the slaves weren’t going to be allowed to vote (a decision made by southern colonists) in any event.
The 2/3 was the compromise. It would have ironically been LESS racist, in context, to have counted them at zero, for the reasons explained above: If you’re not gonna let them vote in the first place, then don’t count them for other power-grabbing purposes.
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.