Came in to this article expecting, somehow, a spin against men/republicans. Came out of this article impressed by the author’s writing and intelligence. Kudos, Catie.
And congratulations pointing out that pregnancy can happen without marriage. While true, that premise has absolutely nothing to do with the (sound and valid [read a fucking book]) conclusion that state sanctioned marriage has basis in supporting population growth.
^ You actually might be mentally handicapped,, which would explain the loss of brain cells. You actually have no idea what you’re talking about at all. And, actually, you provide no sound counter argument (actually adding nothing to the conversation). The SCOTUS verdict was actually has no basis legalizing gay marriage federally, it simply bars the federal discrimination of state sanctioned marriage. State governements, actually, may still bar it, it has not reached federal protection from the states. God damn, actually, that was fucking easy. Dumbass.
For the record, I was for the striking of DOMA and gay (or otherwise) rights to wed. I am also against any marriage or child subsidy as well. It’s just the insanity of younger (especially liberal) people wielding political views with a self-righteous satisfaction even though their views hold no ground in logic or reasoning. It’s disgusting. Our law is one build on reason, not emotion. (By the way, mobocracy? Lordy, freshmen of HS American Gov’t).
“This is a democracy, so actually… popularity DOES make it correct.” and OH MY GOD, no. no no no. NO. NO! I can’t believe you just said that.That’s a quote that would ruin a political career. This is a nation founded on inalienable rights. There are plenty of legal things that are unpopular. You’re advocating mobocracy, not democracy.
Hate to say it (because fuck you, TrickleDown), but you’re getting destroyed in this one, HotPiece. The best argument you should make is for the current lack of necessity for a marriage subsidy. Whereas there were sufficient needs to keep the “sanctity” of marriage intact in the 1900’s, those needs are evaporating as we move into the future. We no longer as workers, soldiers, and leaders like we did in the 40’s. You can’t make a logical case on marriage arguing it’s an institution based on love; it isn’t. Marriage was a subsidy and institution based on having children. And whether you like it or not, hetero-couples, regardless if they were ‘abusing’ the emotional aspect of marriage, were a nation’s best bet for continuity.
^ I realize you mean that in a figurative sense, but, for me, could you please mean it literally? Thanks for potentially giving me the world’s gushiest orgasm.
Every day I wake up and thank my mother and father for blessing me with a tiny cock.
The PSL tastes good enough to make up for it.
Looks like she’s getting coal in her stocking this year.
RFM.
Marrying her for her personality. TFTC.
Came in to this article expecting, somehow, a spin against men/republicans. Came out of this article impressed by the author’s writing and intelligence. Kudos, Catie.
1.6 inches. NF. 1 inch wonder. TFM.
Couldn’t bring myself to read the travesty. Fuck. That.
Thank you.
What if I like little tits?
You claim invalidity but give no reason why. Why do governments give benefits to married couples, especially those with children?
And congratulations pointing out that pregnancy can happen without marriage. While true, that premise has absolutely nothing to do with the (sound and valid [read a fucking book]) conclusion that state sanctioned marriage has basis in supporting population growth.
^ You actually might be mentally handicapped,, which would explain the loss of brain cells. You actually have no idea what you’re talking about at all. And, actually, you provide no sound counter argument (actually adding nothing to the conversation). The SCOTUS verdict was actually has no basis legalizing gay marriage federally, it simply bars the federal discrimination of state sanctioned marriage. State governements, actually, may still bar it, it has not reached federal protection from the states. God damn, actually, that was fucking easy. Dumbass.
built*
For the record, I was for the striking of DOMA and gay (or otherwise) rights to wed. I am also against any marriage or child subsidy as well. It’s just the insanity of younger (especially liberal) people wielding political views with a self-righteous satisfaction even though their views hold no ground in logic or reasoning. It’s disgusting. Our law is one build on reason, not emotion. (By the way, mobocracy? Lordy, freshmen of HS American Gov’t).
“This is a democracy, so actually… popularity DOES make it correct.” and OH MY GOD, no. no no no. NO. NO! I can’t believe you just said that.That’s a quote that would ruin a political career. This is a nation founded on inalienable rights. There are plenty of legal things that are unpopular. You’re advocating mobocracy, not democracy.
Hate to say it (because fuck you, TrickleDown), but you’re getting destroyed in this one, HotPiece. The best argument you should make is for the current lack of necessity for a marriage subsidy. Whereas there were sufficient needs to keep the “sanctity” of marriage intact in the 1900’s, those needs are evaporating as we move into the future. We no longer as workers, soldiers, and leaders like we did in the 40’s. You can’t make a logical case on marriage arguing it’s an institution based on love; it isn’t. Marriage was a subsidy and institution based on having children. And whether you like it or not, hetero-couples, regardless if they were ‘abusing’ the emotional aspect of marriage, were a nation’s best bet for continuity.
#StopCrossFit
King Yoloman
^ I realize you mean that in a figurative sense, but, for me, could you please mean it literally? Thanks for potentially giving me the world’s gushiest orgasm.