[url]http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruzs-heart-weeps-over-gay-marriage-progress/[/url]
[QUOTE]On Thursday, Cruz appeared on Washington Week, a radio show hosted by the conservative Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, to explain his stance on the issue. “Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” Cruz said. He described the “best environment for a child” — one with both a mother and father — as being “under attack. “We need to stand up I believe, and defend traditional marriage,” he continued, “and especially do everything we can to prevent the federal government from forcing a different definition of marriage that is contrary to the views to the citizens of each state.”
[/QUOTE]
His dick wept too.
He's yours now America. Let's just pretend he wasn't born in Calgary.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44004121]He's yours now America. Let's just pretend he wasn't born in Calgary.[/QUOTE]
Why didn't you guys give him to someone else? We didn't want him either.
Why do so many people believe that general homosexuality is an evil "agenda" meant to destroy heterosexuality almost in the same manner of hitler?
These thought processes are fucking baffling to me.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;44004166]Why do so many people believe that general homosexuality is an evil "agenda" meant to destroy heterosexuality almost in the same manner of hitler?
These thought processes are fucking baffling to me.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-is-he-thinking/201003/we-need-have-empathy-tea-partiers[/url]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44004121]He's yours now America. Let's just pretend he wasn't born in Calgary.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully we won't forget it or this moron will be eligible to run for President.
a man raising a child, an epic and necessary debate for all americans and americans should defend against forcing logical additions to a textbook definition "traditional" marriage
ted cruz for presidenet he has united us all against men raising children and will force us to breed.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44004320]Hopefully we won't forget it or this moron will be eligible to run for President.[/QUOTE]
Can we like, stop getting the morons of other countries? We have enough of them as it is and you guys just keep shitting them on us.
[QUOTE=Swilly;44004349]Can we like, stop getting the morons of other countries? We have enough of them as it is and you guys just keep shitting them on us.[/QUOTE]
I am now thinking of that one image of Justin Beiber as the ping pong ball being batted back and forth between Canada and the United States, but with Cruz's face on the ball instead.
[QUOTE=Swilly;44004349]Can we like, stop getting the morons of other countries? We have enough of them as it is and you guys just keep shitting them on us.[/QUOTE]
I wish we could. But as I said, at least as long as they were not born here they cannot run for president.
You know what makes my heart weep? How people like him somehow think of us gays as second class citizens and believe it just to tear away our rights only because the love I feel isn't for a woman.
[QUOTE=Swilly;44004349]Can we like, stop getting the morons of other countries? We have enough of them as it is and you guys just keep shitting them on us.[/QUOTE]
Canada is dumping out all of its garbage so that they can upkeep the friendly stereotype, obviously.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;44004166]Why do so many people believe that general homosexuality is an evil "agenda" meant to destroy heterosexuality almost in the same manner of hitler?
These thought processes are fucking baffling to me.[/QUOTE]
Typically, the anti-gay stance seems to come from one of three camps:
1: The insanely-religious (WBC-levels of insane, or comparable), who believe with all of their hearts that homosexuality is a sin, and that gays are evil and to be punished accordingly. Even though the most powerful and referred-to "evidence" of gays being wrong in the Bible is thought by some scholars to actually refer to slavery being wrong*, and in spite of the fact that Christianity promotes hating sin rather than those afflicted by it. Good luck getting them to ever pull their heads out of their Bibles and listen to logic.
[I]*"Lay not with man as a man like you would with a woman" is the paraphrased line, and it's thought in context to actually refer to owning women as property, but not being allowed to own men as property. Basically, it apparently says you can own a woman as property, and that's all cool and all, but don't enslave other men because for some reason that's way worse. The Bible is pretty fucked up if you look hard at it, and probably shouldn't be used so strictly for modern moral guidance.[/I]
2: The irredeemably stupid and selfish, who perceive any others' rights as infringing on theirs, and only care for their own rights. If it in any way conflicts or impedes with their fat-cart-riding, mayonnaise-slurping antics, it's automatically wrong and must be fought against tooth-and-nail. These are the kinds of horrid people that make Walmart infamous to visit late at night, the sorts of freakish beings that barely resemble people in both appearance and mannerisms. Unless you've got a warehouse full of twinkies waiting as a prize, don't expect these people to listen.
3: The normal and/or well-intentioned, but ignorant, who fall into neither of other camps but still are opposed to homosexual rights. They're usually just normal, nice people who misunderstand what gays and gay rights mean and see them as threats rather than other people like them. Typically just misinformed by the other two camps screaming in their ears, and willing to learn that gays are normal people too if given a chance.
Luckily for the U.S., the majority of those opposed to gay rights that I've personally seen seem to be just misinformed, rather than actively hateful like the minority hamcart-riders and WBC members of the national population. Not really assholes, just going with the status quo flow and doing what the loudest and most official-sounding voices tell them to do.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;44004541]If it in any way conflicts or impedes with their fat-cart-riding, mayonnaise-slurping antics[/QUOTE]
That's a horrible stereotype and a disgusting description anyhow. I agree with your arguments, but this doesn't add anything to it and is just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;44004553]That's a horrible stereotype and a disgusting description anyhow. I agree with your arguments, but this doesn't add anything to it and is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Apologies if I've grossed you out with that, but I've seen and had this misfortune of talking to people fitting this description more times than I'd like. They're usually (not always, mind you) horribly self-serving and concerned with only what affects them directly, especially in terms of politics.
If it bothers enough people, I'll remove this part from it with an edit stating what was removed.
I'm just saying the gross mayonnaise-slurping part, heh. I literally cringed thinking about that. Eguuheguhghghh. Everything else was fine.
Someone explain to me who Ted Cruz is and why I should hate him.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;44005367]Someone explain to me who Ted Cruz is and why I should hate him.[/QUOTE]
Read the article?
[QUOTE=supersnail11;44005449]Read the article?[/QUOTE]
I did, all I found out was that he's just another dumbass senator. Woopdy-doo.
[quote] “We need to stand up I believe, and defend traditional marriage,”[/quote]
"We can start by outlawing divorces!"
[QUOTE=matt000024;44004320]Hopefully we won't forget it or this moron will be eligible to run for President.[/QUOTE]
He is eligible to run for president. He was born in Canada to an American mother, thus making him a natural-born American citizen. He also plans on renouncing his Canadian citizenship (he has dual citizenship) in order to run for the presidency.
Hahaha, "damage to traditional marriage". Show me ONE marriage that was ruined because gay people somewhere else in the country got civil rights. :tinfoil:
nothing is more crippling then when i'm just having a nice day when all of the sudden i remember the homosexual menace wants to convert my children to gayism and slaughter me and my wife
What about single parent children? More damaging than homosexual parents.
Ah yes, I miss the days when this country abided by the traditional Biblical definition of marriage. I miss them almost as much as I long for the days long forgotten when every Jesus-loving Christian man could [URL="http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-7.htm"]sell his daughter into slavery[/URL], as the Bible proclaims.
[editline]22nd February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;44006784]What about single parent children? More damaging than homosexual parents.[/QUOTE]
That implies that homosexual parents are harmful in the first place. All credible studies that have been conducted on the topic overwhelmingly support that having homosexual parents does not harm a child's development.
And mine bleeds for him [sp]not[/sp]
Every time I hear traditional marriage, all I can think is the force-marrying of children that parents did for centuries.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;44007551]Every time I hear traditional marriage, all I can think is the force-marrying of children that parents did for centuries.[/QUOTE]
Well alot of the time conservatives in the states are opposed to marriages that mix the races. The definition of traditional marriage is a bit dicey.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;44004541]Typically, the anti-gay stance seems to come from one of three camps:
1: The insanely-religious (WBC-levels of insane, or comparable), who believe with all of their hearts that homosexuality is a sin, and that gays are evil and to be punished accordingly. Even though the most powerful and referred-to "evidence" of gays being wrong in the Bible is thought by some scholars to actually refer to slavery being wrong*, and in spite of the fact that Christianity promotes hating sin rather than those afflicted by it. Good luck getting them to ever pull their heads out of their Bibles and listen to logic.
[I]*"Lay not with man as a man like you would with a woman" is the paraphrased line, and it's thought in context to actually refer to owning women as property, but not being allowed to own men as property. Basically, it apparently says you can own a woman as property, and that's all cool and all, but don't enslave other men because for some reason that's way worse. The Bible is pretty fucked up if you look hard at it, and probably shouldn't be used so strictly for modern moral guidance.[/I]
2: The irredeemably stupid and selfish, who perceive any others' rights as infringing on theirs, and only care for their own rights. If it in any way conflicts or impedes with their fat-cart-riding, mayonnaise-slurping antics, it's automatically wrong and must be fought against tooth-and-nail. These are the kinds of horrid people that make Walmart infamous to visit late at night, the sorts of freakish beings that barely resemble people in both appearance and mannerisms. Unless you've got a warehouse full of twinkies waiting as a prize, don't expect these people to listen.
3: The normal and/or well-intentioned, but ignorant, who fall into neither of other camps but still are opposed to homosexual rights. They're usually just normal, nice people who misunderstand what gays and gay rights mean and see them as threats rather than other people like them. Typically just misinformed by the other two camps screaming in their ears, and willing to learn that gays are normal people too if given a chance.
Luckily for the U.S., the majority of those opposed to gay rights that I've personally seen seem to be just misinformed, rather than actively hateful like the minority hamcart-riders and WBC members of the national population. Not really assholes, just going with the status quo flow and doing what the loudest and most official-sounding voices tell them to do.[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting possibly the biggest and most influential group, closet homos who are totally gay or perverted and just intentionally distance themselves as an act of cover. Really, it's total bullshit that most people view religious folks as somehow less sexual people than everyone else, when news stories break all the time that confirm them as some of the most sexually fucked up people in the fucking world of existence. And people still somehow don't seem to connect the dots here. Religion is a means of psychological manipulation and control, and taking control over someones reproductive organs is one of the more effective means of manipulation.
What totally boggles my mind is how he, and folks who share his convictions, can honestly believe that extending equal rights to homosexuals in any way whatsoever delegitimizes or damages "traditional" marriages. It has no effect whatsoever on straight couples. Is the knowledge that somewhere in the world is a married gay couple really enough to crumble the foundations of heterosexual romance? If you walk past a gay couple on the street while out with your wife, will you two suddenly stop loving each other?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.