Posted on 06/08/2013 3:30:45 PM PDT by fwdude
Thanks for admitting that you are indeed a compulsive liar and not to be believed about anything.
Your pro-gay marriage arguments aren’t holding up very well.
This crusade of yours isn’t changing any minds.
Liar
Your pro-gay marriage efforts just aren’t panning at, but you do persist.
“”Honestly at this point, I don’t see what people are getting their panties in a bunch over with the gay marriage thing. What are you all defending...some imaginary right homosexual couple have to be protected from the kind of screwing millions of men get every year in the “family” courts. Their divorce rate will be the same 50% as the rest of us. The community property, the alimony, the child support, the custody fights, the ruined credit, the bankruptcy. They want it that bad...let them have it. It’s not like you would be doing them any favors. “”
29 posted on 5/2/2013 2:04:43 PM by Orangedog
And, liar, don't forget to dig up where I said they or anyone else playing married should be getting any kind of federal benefits.
Your homosexuals and polygamists couldn’t collect widow benefits from the federal government in the 1780s and 1790s, because the federal definition of widow didn’t allow it, don’t you think?
Your pro-gay marriage argument is that the founding generation was wrong in interpreting the constitution, and should have allowed each individual,or group to define marriage for it’s self.
What is interesting is to learn that your anti-marriage crusade goes back to at least 2002.
Reynolds v. United States, 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman
Liar
So the guys in the black dresses never get it wrong? Dread Scott? Roe v Wade? Obamacare?
You don’t seem able to explain the Continental Congress defining widows in 1780 and 1794 and so on as you promote homosexual marriage and polygamy in the name of the constitution and the Founding fathers, etc. etc.
The time limit for making claims under the Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780, which promised half-pay pensions to widows and orphans of some officers, expired in 1794.
For examples of acts granting pensions to officers’ widows only, see: Act of
June 7, 1794, ch. 52 § 1, 1 Stat. 390 (awarding a five-year half-pay pension to
widows of commissioned officers killed in the line of duty); Act of Mar. 14, 1798,
ch. 15, 1 Stat. 540 (extending the 1794 Act’s widows’ pension to the widows of
“commissioned officers of the troops of the United States, and of the militia” killed
in the line of duty); Act of Mar. 16, 1802, ch. 9, § 15, 2 Stat. 132, 135 (providing a
five-year half-pay pension to the widows of commissioned officers of the United
States killed in the line of duty); Act of April 12, 1808, ch. 43, §5, 2 Stat. 481, 483
(extending the Act of 1802 widows’ pension provision to the regiments raised
pursuant to this statute); Act of Jan. 2, 1812, and so on for year after year.
________________________________________________
Widows, widows, widows, widows, and now you want the federal government to recognize homosexual and polygamy widows in the American military and to claim that the constitution doesn’t allow discrimination against homosexuals.
And you never find anything in article 1, section 8...liar.
Orangedog has a decade old history of this pro-gay marriage activism, notice that his post 2 was a subtle reference against conservative’s fight against homosexual marriage to kick off the thread, a position that he pursues passionately, this is what he does.
See post my post 64 of his post from a 2003 thread titled “Same-Sex Marriage and the Marriage Movement”, or this recent one defending gay marriage, from a thread titled “Mass AG asking court to throw out marriage law”, these type posts go back a decade from this guy. This is what he does.
*I was married once. I’m almost certain the the biggest threat to my marriage wasn’t the two gals in the next apartmnet complex who stopped driving stick and decided to play house together. No, I’m pretty sure it more to do with my (now) ex wife knowing that if she paid a lawyer $1000 she could use the government to take my kid, most of my stuff and a good chunck of my future earnings. That 50% divorce rate isn’t because government spent decades making marriage stronger with all the favors it’s done for married people with single people’s money.
12 posted on 3/27/2013 7:06:49 AM by Orangedog
This kind of stuff for thread after thread, year after year.
Sorry, post 64 gave a Orangedog post from 2013, not 2003, here is one from 2003.
Quote from a thread titled ‘GOP to wait, see on gay marriage’—”And now people are starting to get their panties in a bunch when the counter-culture wants to be part of it.”—”At this point, “defending marriage” is like complaining about the poison ivy in your front yard when the foundation and roof of the house have caved in.”
To: Ron H.
*”””Clearly, protecting marriage will be a major issue in the 2004 elections,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based council. “We expect every elected official seeking the votes of pro-family Americans to be aggressive and unwavering in their defense of both the word `marriage’ and the institution it represents.”””*
At this point I have to ask, ‘what is it that you’re protecting marriage from, and why?’ For more than 30 years the institution of marriage has been under constant assault from no-fault divorce laws, demonization of fathers in the home, and a growing divorce industry that has co-opted all three branches of government at almost every level. All of this has happened without so much as anyone in Washington saying ‘boo.’ And now people are starting to get their panties in a bunch when the counter-culture wants to be part of it. If you all are wondering why there aren’t masses in the streets with pitch forks and torches to defend the institution of marriage, think about what’s left to defend. The recent generation of men don’t want a damned thing to do with it because they know that it has become a one-sided, bad deal for men.
Do you really want to defend marriage? Get rid of the no-fault divorce laws and stop making it a losing proposition for men in general. Then the institution of marriage will be big enough to take care of itself. At this point, “defending marriage” is like complaining about the poison ivy in your front yard when the foundation and roof of the house have caved in.
7 posted on 11/17/2003 4:53:14 AM by Orangedog
You do have a hobby, promoting homosexual marriage and social liberalism to conservatives at freerepublic.
Again....liar.
Bok yemek...
Wow.
01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101111 01110010 01100100 01101001 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110110 01101001 01110100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100111 01101111 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 01100101 01101100 01100110
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.