posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by waynos
Wanting what you have and claiming that your personal relationship is denied in the USA because you are gay is playing the victim.
(As the social institution of marriage mentioned in the American constitution was that of a man and woman to found a family it was not directed at
the union of a man and man, the US constitution does not grant the right of union of a man and a man to be defined as a marriage.)
You said; A union between two people should not be anyone else business if its what they both want and are both in a position to make that choice
freely (but you have unreasoned exceptions ... incest and mature 15year olds, and that this very business of gay personal relationships is your
(So what if you are not gay, it doesn't matter ) you just told me you believe in “equal rights for some” (but not “rights” for the
Rothschilds or any other inbreeding group that has practiced incest for many generations.) in this you want some concept that is not "equality" by
your own admission.
If you are gay and have the right of a lifelong committed personal relationship in the USA why do you believe homosexual people don’t already
have that what you consider to be a “right”.
Where is the social mandate. Has there been a vote on the issue.Nope.It was another top down social takeover and you fell for the idea just because
they used the word "equality" (with the growing inequality ) and it causes division . Please use the word equality to takeover our social
You are still missing the big picture on govt intervention in a social institution and the right to, and the very existance of gay personal
relationships in the USA( that you seem to deny). We agree on one thing here, that committed lifelong personal relationships are just that.
Good day and happy easter.
edit on 31-3-2013 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)