lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

originally posted by: TechUnique

Yes I can contribute to this topic. I believe there to be a clear agenda behind this to cause contention between the LGBT and the Christian community.

Excellent contribution. I am sure those of us who read the Original Post appreciate you pointing out that rather obvious nugget of wisdom.

Now, if the 'Christian' community that is responsible for all the anti-gay rhetoric and bigotry actually practiced what their faith alleges then they would not have much of an issue when two people wanted to get married regardless of what their sexual inclination or lack of religious beliefs happened to be.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No matter how hard you try to be a patronizing little scamp, I can't help but find you mildly entertaining. Why is no one discussing what I mentioned then?

Oh yeah. Selective thinking.

a reply to: Grimpachi

no that is not what it means. i am not going to kill anyone. try again

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

no that is not what it means. i am not going to kill anyone. try again

We're extremists remember? Us pesky fundamentalist Christians are not to be trusted. Everything that comes out of our mouths is hateful bigotry supposedly.

It's amazing the way people will twist your words when talking about topics like this.

Even ATS has fallen for this nonsense, of all places. Hardly surprising with how mainstream it's gotten though.

a reply to: deadeyedick


We have seen your other posts about how blood will be spilled over this.


Dress it up however you like. It is very clear what you mean.

a reply to: TechUnique

I am glad I can entertain you. Hopefully you find my as amusing as I find people who believe in fantasy beings like Lucifer.

It would be nice however if instead of making posts that revolve around me you actually made one that added to the topic which is about a fundamentalist Christian cuckoo banana who wants to prevent people from getting married because they may not believe in God or they prefer people of the same sex.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The thread topic is skewed. The word assult leads some to think of violence. We are not at that point yet. We just may get there soon depending on the scotus ruling coming down the line.

I would like to see Americans retain as much freedom as possible as you all should.

Extending marriage to lgbt is not freedom as much as other alternatives.

That community is not large enough that we should change the american lifestyle to cater to them.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
That community is not large enough that we should change the american lifestyle to cater to them.

Using that backwards logic we probably should not have let dem colored folk get dat vote being that there are much fewer of them, right?

That community was not large enough that we should have changed our 'American lifestyle', right?

Wowie, wow. You are just a serious hole-digging machine. Once you start, you cannot stop.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: deadeyedick





We have seen your other posts about how blood will be spilled over this.





Dress it up however you like. It is very clear what you mean.

Your view of me does not reflect my reality.

Yes if peple are pushed then there will be bloodshed.

Okla is not san fran.

Even though i will not ever harm a person with violence there will still be bloodshed if things do not get better.

TOLERANCE

The blood will be on your hands because of your militant stance against religion

originally posted by: deadeyedick
TOLERANCE

Exactly, Christians need to be tolerant of people with differing beliefs rather than try and legislate the yucky stuff away.

'which is about a fundamentalist Christian cuckoo banana who wants to prevent people from getting married because they may not believe in God or they prefer people of the same sex.'

I thought you said that what I said was obvious? That this story is more about creating contention between the LGBT and Christian Community.

You said that was incredibly obvious to the point of it not even being worth mentioned??

Yet you just said this after telling me to stick with the topic.
'which is about a fundamentalist Christian cuckoo banana who wants to prevent people from getting married because they may not believe in God or they prefer people of the same sex.'

Not everyone can see you for what you are but I certainly can. You're good at being a nuisance, but you haven't quite perfected it yet. I honestly am not a fan of you, even in the slightest.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Have you ever heard of the constitution?

I am glad you are not in charge of anything other than the amount of booze you have.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Have you ever heard of the constitution?

Yes I have. Do you know about the 14th Amendment? If not, and I am leaning in that direction, I suggest you brush up on it in between having your signs printed.

I am glad you are not in charge of anything other than the amount of booze you have.

Actually, I am not in charge of that, my personal assistant handles it for me.

a reply to: Elton

There are personal limits and majority beliefs that have to be taken into account.

It always goes back to the fact everyone assumes i am against gay marriage.

I am pro civil unions that let the stuff work itself out instead of forcing either side.

It is simply a better option when you account for the factors on both sides.

Looking from one side one will not be able to see how this issue is being used to divide us and destroy freedom.

It is kinda like how the keystone pipline is used as a talking point yet 80% of it is built and being used today. politics

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Have you ever heard of the constitution?

Yes I have. Do you know about the 14th Amendment? If not, and I am leaning in that direction, I suggest you brush up on it in between having your signs printed.

I am glad you are not in charge of anything other than the amount of booze you have.

Actually, I am not in charge of that, my personal assistant handles it for me.

Yeah, I think my initial image of you in my head, was pretty much 100% correct. Thanks for confirming that with your pigheaded attitude and slip of tangible arrogance.

The post above me by deadeyedick I agree with wholeheartedly. If you can't see this you are truly being played instruments.

originally posted by: TechUnique
I thought you said that what I said was obvious? That this story is more about creating contention between the LGBT and Christian Community.

And who in the Original Post was desirous of passing laws prohibiting people who either do not believe in God or are homosexuals from getting married? Was it:

A) Homosexuals
B) Atheists
C) Some wacko fundamentalist from Oklahoma

You said that was incredibly obvious to the point of it not even being worth mentioned??

Yes, quite obvious. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

Not everyone can see you for what you are but I certainly can.

Well, not everybody has your amazing Spidey Senses.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Even though i will not ever harm a person with violence there will still be bloodshed if things do not get better.

OK so you will not actually fight and kill you're just going to make up signs to egg on others to fight and kill in your civil war.



The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The thread topic is skewed. The word assult leads some to think of violence. We are not at that point yet. We just may get there soon depending on the scotus ruling coming down the line.

That is a threat of violence against whom? The scotus, gays, who?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Pop culture reference.
Hilarious.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
It is simply a better option when you account for the factors on both sides.

Looking from one side one will not be able to see how this issue is being used to divide us and destroy freedom.

Honestly, not allowing atheists of gay people to marry seems like more of a freedom killer than simply allowing it. Proposing law to target a specific group to restrict their freedoms seems kinda un-American... :/