. We're all accountable for our actions IMHO.

.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Victor, whether a person is a transgendered, transsexual, transatlantic cross-dresser is of no concern of mine.
I've met several people who fit that criteria and they were very nice. I don't think it's spiritually healthy but I'll let them take it up with God. We're all accountable for our actions IMHO.

...and if you don't believe in a Creator that's fine with me too. Guess we share one thing- pity for the other.

bloody spaniard wrote:

except for the ones born with that defective gene thing... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

This thread has officially become priceless.

victor809 wrote:

Fuzz is an example of why heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. I hope when the homos become the majority they outlaw it.

teedubbya wrote:

Bloodsport... I know you mean well. But you can't possibly on one hand think that individuals who you are convinced will need to take something up with your god later were "very nice people" on one hand, and on the other hand defend ideas that their secular rights should somehow be lessened.

victor809 wrote:

You mean legal? How have I said that? I merely said that they are wasting their time redefining marriage in order to qualify for alimony I suppose.
They AND other non-homosexuals (relatives who also live together) should be fighting for other "familial" rights such as extended health coverage, hospital visitation, legal access to living trusts, wills, estates, etc.

bloody spaniard wrote:

So a group is fighting for one thing, and you're willing to give them another. You're argument being that it may be different, but it's like pretty much equal...
](*,)

victor809 wrote:

I've been trying to dodge heterosexual marriage for WAAAYYYY too many years now. I've been waiting for someone to ban it.

victor809 wrote:

Yeah.
THAT'S why you ain't married.

😉

tailgater wrote:

I've been trying to dodge heterosexual marriage for WAAAYYYY too many years now. I've been waiting for someone to ban it.

victor809 wrote: