Page 36 of 45 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #351
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    And we currently all have the exact same rights, you can deny it all you want, however it is quite provable.
    nope you are wrong
    BUT id LOVE for you to FACTUALLY prove it

    please focus on that word FACTUALLY
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #352
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Sigh...I proved my point and you ignored it. That is a fail on you because you didn't like that you were wrong.

    All this talk about other people's bias, but when confronted with your own, you run and hide. Pathetic.
    No, you failed to prove your point. You failed to show where MARRIAGE has ever been anything but a male and female (or perhaps females in some cases). You showed where there were official relationships between same sex (almost exclusively male), but none of those were called marriage even as marriage itself existed at the same time.

    Watch the "pathetic" nonsense, especially when you've failed your point.

  3. #353
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You are making a strong argument FOR same sex marriage. Canada, for example, did not legalize same sex marriage as just a liberal principle. It did so largely as a conservative and moral principle because the institution regulates the sexual behavior of homosexuals and provides additional stable homes for children. Trying to compare same sex marriage to no fault divorce is ridiculous and a large part of the reason your side has been losing this debate. Extending marriage to same sex couples leads to MORE people marrying, not less.
    Hardly. Whose morals, by the way? Certainty not any major religion on the planet agrees with homosexuality nor same sex marriages. Why do you think that is, just bigotry, or might there be some historically good reasons for societies not to promote a policy not at all committed to propagating the species, one that basically says a mother and father may be replaced by two of the same sex?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Since 2003. That was when Lawrence versus Texas struck down sodomy laws. The "tolerance" of our nation is a decade old.
    Yes, now all of a sudden everything in society has to change radically, completely, all of society forced to change just for 2-4% of the population? Just how greedy is that, when we as a people have shown so much tolerance? Be appreciative...or you gamble with the gains achieved... these gains can be removed, taken away. Many do not at all agree with the life style and yet continued to be tolerant, despite many having a personal or devoutly related repugnance of this lifestyle. No offense intended, but this is, by definition, a deviant manner in which to conduct life...not to be encouraged/promoted.

    Now, when pushed too hard and fast, many are ready to push back as hard or harder.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You argue that the whole "nature v. nurture" debate has not been settled while arguing that gays recruit people to homosexuality. That is intellectually dishonest. You made up your mind, and the science has shown pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is based on combination of factors, biology being a large part of it.
    Talking about intellectual dishonesty, why not explain the basis of my alleged intellectual dishonesty? You are asserting that because we do not definitively know either way, that I cannot express an opinion as to what I actually think is the case? If that were what I had, in actuality, done? So let us just say, if we, society, eventually prove it is nurture that is the cause, would I then have been intellectually dishonest, had I made such an assertion? And why do you not show us where I performed this alleged indiscretion, if you are going to trouble to accuse?

    And lets see some of this definitive science you claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Same sex marriage does serve a state interest. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are raised by gay parents. They deserve the same benefits of marriage as children being raised by opposite sex parents get to enjoy. The fact that you ignore this is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
    I am not at all in favor of same sex adoption of children. Hmmm, so if I dare to disagree with you or your stance, that is to be labeled intellectual dishonesty...? Again, talk about intellectual dishonesty... someone needs some mirrors in one's house.



    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Promote? Are you kidding? So when gays practice promiscuous sex outside of committed relationships then that is acceptable? But we would not want to promote that they practice committed, monogamous relationships the way we do for heterosexuals...with marriage? Social conservatism is a walking contradiction.
    You do not have to have marriage to have a committed relationship... marriage is for the historical and current protections of women and the children created through that union, and ultimately, more indirectly, it protects men as well. As same sex couplings do not create children, this legal arrangement is unnecessary. So why, when it is detrimental to society, would society want to do that? If one has no eyes/is blind, why would one need reading glasses... ? And speaking of blind...



    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Society will always have that conversation and it will be based on what is best for society, not the interest of the few. I am confident that same sex marriage will prove to be best for society as a whole. Whether or not it can be extended beyond same sex marriage is a different debate and one we will have as a society regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is made legal. Trying to conflate the issue by turning to an appeal to consequences fallacy is not very convincing nor rational.
    Good try at evading answering the question, now tell us, under the law with its 14th Amendment protections, how would we deny a mother marrying her son, daughter or even both... or a brother marrying a brother, a father his daughter, or all three of his daughters... what will be the basis under the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection?? None, I repeat none of us can currently do these things legally. I am just as restricted as everyone else at this point, I cannot marry a blood family member, I cannot marry someone too young, I cannot marry someone of the same sex, I cannot marry 7 people at the same time... we are equal. Once we do away with being equal [ again we all currently have the same rights and restrictions ] as is in place now, nothing much of consequence will be able to be stopped.

    Show me where I am wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Apply that same reasoning to the argument you made above.
    Ditto.



    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Innovation and reason trump tradition. We have no progressed as a society by always doing things the same way simply because they appeared to work well in the past. We question our assumptions and challenge ourselves to look for better ways. Your appeal to tradition fallacy and slippery slope fallacy are as stale as always. For somebody who promised me an "educated" debate you rely quite a bit on logical fallacies and a lack of evidence.
    We have not progressed as a society by promoting wild unproven [except proven wrong], methods that have never worked in the past. You see, we want this country to stay strong and vibrant...we have a history to show how that occurred... you want what you want no matter what... is that not selfish?

  4. #354
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) well aware, remind me how many of them were done by that states supreme court?
    Simply irrelevant, judges do not make law, they follow it, make sure the laws are constitutional. Besides...Government is not the master of the people, we are the masters, they are our public and hired servants. We the people are the sovereign rulers.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1a.) so you have not facts still just you opinion, i knew that already
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1b.) plausible based on your OPINION
    yeah, those your opinions are they?? ha ha ha...your off the cuff opinions about an my opinion, my opinion based on fact...guess which trumps?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) again that long story had zero FACTUAL or LOGICAL impact only your opinion that you think it matters with nothing but your "feelings" to support it, so no sharpening needed, because i dont buy your dull "story"
    Think this one originally related to gay marriage requiring special rights. If everyone has equal rights now, and we do as I have the same restrictions in place as do all others, cannot marry my brother or mother, sister, cousin or daughter, cannot marry another man, someone too young, cannot marry an animal, cannot marry 12 other people or even two at the same time legally...we all have all the same restrictions and rights at this point... we would have to grant special rights to gay people to do something like let them marry someone of the same sex... isnt that special....

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2a.) are you saying you are unaware of this, i thought you were chest beating earlier and said you are educated on this topic? lol
    So, you don't even know the court ruling that you assert...wow...

    And yet you want to just throw out some obscure reference to a court ruling and expect me to omnisciently [thanks for the compliment anyhow ] know what silliness of which you speak, eh? Cite or don't bother mentioning, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    4.) so you are not going to qoute the us laws that make gay culture illegal? thanks thats what i thought, deflection noted LMAO
    my honesty is what makes me laugh at your opinion pushed as facts

    what was criminal you still havent said it, what law are you referring to?
    first, who ever said anything about US laws exclusively...?? However...

    Well, lets see, you can go to any of the 31 states that have laws against same sex marriage... that would be against gay culture would it not? Or are you saying that those enhance gay culture do you? Nice. DOMA, that help gay culture does it?

    Then globally.....1871 Homosexuality is criminalized throughout the German Empire by Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, 1886 In England, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, outlawing sexual relations between men, 1895 The trial of Oscar Wilde results in his being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 for "gross indecency" and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison, 1903 In New York on 21 February 1903, New York police conducted the first United States recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston Hotel Baths. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    5.) you fail in the first sentence because they are special, justices already disagree with you and everybody else doesnt matter because like your argument fails so will theirs. Saying its completely equal is simply a lie.
    So wrong historically as to be embarrassing.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Like i said justices already disagree with you. But you are welcome to keep you OPINION.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    6.) no it was a complete failure as court rullings support those people and the only support you have is your "feelings" LMAO nothing was dismantled in reality.
    Since you have not quoted anything, always expecting me to either find your silliness someplace or just making it up, who knows... cite if you want a response, cannot bother any longer with your addressing your phantom court cases...

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    7.) who said they have to be exact but they do have to be parallels and you claiming that a minotiy group like child rapists would want "special rights" based on equal rights for gays is asinine. Nobody sane, logical and honest would by that.
    See above many times over....

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    you want to know what rights would be taken away if rape was made legal???/? LMAO you cant be serious, now i know you are just making stuff up since you lost and are just talking circles for fun
    Yeah, futile, mistakenly thought this was engagement of the thoughtful/straightforward broker styled discussion ...my bad. To remain interesting one must be able to make a point, see a point, see an analogy, not constantly fall back on incessant LMAOs or lols, lacking supporting proof, the only constants being those of the illogical genre, no citation of cases nor material evidence, calling all everyone else says an opinion...

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    8.) yes you were 100% wrong because this is the start of your dishonest, illogical, straw-man rant "Don't attempt to label me and how educated I am." i never did this, i said you are uneducated about this topic. and you reant was about general knowledge and chest beating that was pointless and impressed nobody
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    9.) its already proven, my quote and what i actually said proves it? are you hoping that today my post will be different and has different words in it? LMAO
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    I made a statement about "A" you tried to relate my statement or claimed it meant "B" it factually did not and there no logic or facts to even support that false conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    if you feel differently by all means post my quote here AGAIN and disect it, show me where my words meant minorities that didnt have rights yet or minorities ilke pedophilia. Id LOVE to hear it and if you can, i sir will admit you were right.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    10.) translation, you have nothing, it was a fail and multiples have rules on it, not just one LOL so yes, it was a good try by you
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    11.) i thought so, and like i said that wasnt an insult, i could honestly tell you were drinking, a little to much babbling, filler, random sayings/quotes and non related material being typed LOL
    A nicely hot mess of hooey.... ignore IS the astute move, cutting one's losses... do not think there is a single fact or source, much less any logic in the whole post.........

    Am reminded of the story of the man hitting himself in the head with a ball-peen hammer... and when approached, asked why he was doing it, he replied, "'cause it feels soooooo good when I stop."
    This is where I stop... ciao...

    just a good faith suggestion: recognize the spell checker here, could be of great assistance...

  5. #355
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Yeah, they should not have had to earn it through horrible abuses. It should have been theirs to begin with and you just want the gays to get beaten on for your amusement.
    That is just a bit over the line there, prof, don't you think? Can you support that offensive statement with any evidence?

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Actually, I did refute you before that, but next time feel free to cut that part of the quote out it will make you seem a little more reliable.
    You have yet to refute anything but thanks for playing

    Like always you delve into absurdity when you decide to go somewhere. I do however, agree that family members should be allowed special legal responsibilities like shared health care, legal decision making in the case of injury, hospital visitation rights, shared wealth and inheritance, and most of the things a marriage contract legally deals with. Oh, and yes family members already have methods of having those partnerships in a legal sense. What you are talking about stopping is sexual relations which the marriage contract actually does little about considering you are allowed to have sexual relations without a marriage contract, but yet things like sex with a child are illegal no matter what. So you are arguing a completely different point and laws that do not connect with each other. Being married does not make sex automatically legal considering you can have a rape of a spouse.

    So do you have any real points, or are we just going to hear more about you not being a bigot.
    There is nothing absurd about it at all. You have to try and objectify it as absurd because you can't refute it. Sisters marrying each other. Brothers marrying each other, ect can make the exact same argument gays are making for "marriage". Why? Because Gay "Marriage" trivializes marriage. Your inability to logically discuss the issue and falling back on emotional arguments only makes those irrefutable facts stronger. You're also having to fall back on another strawman, which is the argument that marriage is about sex. That's a false premise. The institution of marriage, the oldest notion of a tradition in human history, as always been about children. Bringing the opposite sexes together in a single union to procreate and continue to existence of the human race. Marriage has never been about what hole you put it in.

  7. #357
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    nope you are wrong
    BUT id LOVE for you to FACTUALLY prove it

    please focus on that word FACTUALLY
    Not a threat, just notice, probably my last post in reply.

    Here are the facts, rights are most often not absolute.

    Right now in my state, for example, a heterosexual man has the exact same rights and restrictions in the law as a homosexual man, no less and no more. That is called equal protection under the law. FACT.

    Fact: We both can marry legally. We can both marry under the exact same circumstances [ I can marry a woman who is of age, consenting...so can he ]. Able to prove that wrong?

    He cannot marry, in my state, another man. Neither can I. Equal? Exactly equal, yes.

    I also cannot marry my father, my mother, my sisters, my brothers, my daughters, my sons or any combination of those, I cannot marry more than one person at a time, etc... neither can he. We have the exact same rights and we have the exact same restrictions. Prove that wrong. FACTS.

    Exactly Equal Protection under the law for the both of us, in my state.

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You have yet to refute anything but thanks for playing
    Yes yes, double down on the wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There is nothing absurd about it at all.
    Actually, it is absurd. legally recognized gay marriage does not change laws regarding incest or the age of consent. You can have the government recognize gay marriages all over the US and never ever touch any other laws. Like I said, gay marriage does not make criminal sex acts legal. If you want to go the slippery slope argument you should have been there when they were discussing anti-sodomy laws as those involved illegal sex acts. Just like it was technically illegal in some states for married couples to give each other hummers it would also be illegal for a couple with a legal marriage to fornicate if other laws already prohibited it. Marriage in a legal sense does not apply at all to sexual activities. It does not make them legal or illegal. It is only about a contract. You are confusing religious marriage and sex law with legal marriage contracts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You have to try and objectify it as absurd because you can't refute it.
    You have to pretend like you have an argument because if you don't then you would see what everyone else does, that this is all a load of prejudiced hot air because you don't even understand the issue has nothing to do with sexual relations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Sisters marrying each other. Brothers marrying each other, ect can make the exact same argument gays are making for "marriage". Why? Because Gay "Marriage" trivializes marriage.
    Actually, since gay people have not been recognized as legitimately married all the damage to the reputation of marriage has been done mainly by straights. Of courtse, conside3ring the institution was originally a financial and political union which was pretty much slavery for the woman I am not terribly surprised. However, to get back to the real point, sisters and brothers sharing a legal contract and taking responsibility for each other in finances, health care, and survival is not terribly rare at all. Since that is all the marriage contract governs then sisters and brothers partnering for the survival of the family is not a terrible idea and is often done after things like tragedies involving the parents, and people think it is heroic and good how siblings stick together and care for each other after tragedy. What you are talking about is incest and sexual activity which the marriage contract neither would make legal or even encourage. Religios marriage beliefs would encourage fornication of married couples, but it is not in the laws as any sort of requirement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Your inability to logically discuss the issue and falling back on emotional arguments only makes those irrefutable facts stronger.
    Not really, but you are good at being wrong so don't let me stop you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You're also having to fall back on another strawman, which is the argument that marriage is about sex.
    Do you have a problem with two people forming a business partnership because they are the same gender, or siblings, or whatever? No, of course you don't, but business partnersghips are pretty similar to the marriage contract. They declare things like responsibility, decision making in case of injury, legal status, involve tax incentives and changes, allow for the establishment of inheritance or ownership transfer upon death, and can convey any number of legal contingencies. They are in place to secure and litigate civil matters regarding assets and legal responsibilities by civil courts. That is exactly what a marriage contract does as per the government. It does not tell you when to have sex, that you have to have children, or even that hummers are illegal. It doesn't even carry any criminal penalties in it. What you are referring to is the punishment for having sexual activity for dangerous or non-consenting sexual activity. That is the part of this that the bible speaks out against, and religion has a problem with. It is not bad in god's eyes to be attracted to another person of your own gender, it is bad to act on it with sexual activity so even god is fine with gays as long as they don't bugger each other according to christians.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    That's a false premise. The institution of marriage, the oldest notion of a tradition in human history, as always been about children. Bringing the opposite sexes together in a single union to procreate and continue to existence of the human race. Marriage has never been about what hole you put it in.
    Wow, history is not one of your strong suits is it? Not to mention the reality of sex and reproduction. believe me, lots of people know that marriage is not how you reproduce. You really should update yourself on your mid 50's childlike information on where babies come from. I will give you a hint, the stork does not deliver babies to married couples.

  9. #359
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    1.)Simply irrelevant, judges do not make law, they follow it, make sure the laws are constitutional. Besides...Government is not the master of the people, we are the masters, they are our public and hired servants. We the people are the sovereign rulers.

    2.) yeah, those your opinions are they?? ha ha ha...your off the cuff opinions about an my opinion, my opinion based on fact...guess which trumps?

    Think this one originally related to gay marriage requiring special rights. If everyone has equal rights now, and we do as I have the same restrictions in place as do all others, cannot marry my brother or mother, sister, cousin or daughter, cannot marry another man, someone too young, cannot marry an animal, cannot marry 12 other people or even two at the same time legally...we all have all the same restrictions and rights at this point... we would have to grant special rights to gay people to do something like let them marry someone of the same sex... isnt that special....

    So, you don't even know the court ruling that you assert...wow...

    And yet you want to just throw out some obscure reference to a court ruling and expect me to omnisciently [thanks for the compliment anyhow ] know what silliness of which you speak, eh? Cite or don't bother mentioning, please.

    first, who ever said anything about US laws exclusively...?? However...

    Well, lets see, you can go to any of the 31 states that have laws against same sex marriage... that would be against gay culture would it not? Or are you saying that those enhance gay culture do you? Nice. DOMA, that help gay culture does it?

    Then globally.....1871 – Homosexuality is criminalized throughout the German Empire by Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, 1886 – In England, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, outlawing sexual relations between men, 1895 – The trial of Oscar Wilde results in his being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 for "gross indecency" and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison, 1903 – In New York on 21 February 1903, New York police conducted the first United States recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston Hotel Baths. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison

    So wrong historically as to be embarrassing.



    Since you have not quoted anything, always expecting me to either find your silliness someplace or just making it up, who knows... cite if you want a response, cannot bother any longer with your addressing your phantom court cases...



    See above many times over....



    Yeah, futile, mistakenly thought this was engagement of the thoughtful/straightforward broker styled discussion ...my bad. To remain interesting one must be able to make a point, see a point, see an analogy, not constantly fall back on incessant LMAOs or lols, lacking supporting proof, the only constants being those of the illogical genre, no citation of cases nor material evidence, calling all everyone else says an opinion...








    A nicely hot mess of hooey.... ignore IS the astute move, cutting one's losses... do not think there is a single fact or source, much less any logic in the whole post.........

    Am reminded of the story of the man hitting himself in the head with a ball-peen hammer... and when approached, asked why he was doing it, he replied, "'cause it feels soooooo good when I stop."
    This is where I stop... ciao...

    just a good faith suggestion: recognize the spell checker here, could be of great assistance...
    1.) let me get this straight, i remind you that justices disagree with you, then you tell me some states have voted the other way and when i ask how many did with justicies you say it doent matter LMAO
    i totally agree, your point did NOT matter :LMAO: you owned yourself again

    1b.) i didnt state my opinion, wrong again, i pointed out that fact that you posted opinion and nothing else. This point fails.
    2.) we dont have equal rights, so again this point fails cause its based off a false premise. THis point fails.
    2a.) another lie, why do you lie so much, nobody falls for it, it hasnt worked yet so why do you think it will work now. This point fails
    4.) holy cow could you be anymore dishonest. You said it was illegal to be homosexual then you said gay culture is illegal. You said thats they way it was in the past. SO i asked you to prove it and sight the laws and you sight the fact we dont have equal rights and gays cant marry?????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    sorry that doesnt make homsexuality of gay culture illegal

    next you qoue a law in england that is meaningless to me because i did bring up the US ans have been doing so
    after that you quote a 1950 SODOMY law . . . . . SODOMY

    NEWS flash, sodomy is also heterosexual its anal or oral sex WOW more self ownage you just did to yourself

    you lose again, this point fails

    5.) facts already proved you wrong, denial wont help you. this point fails

    6.) please stop with the lying and nonsense i have mentioned them earlier in this thread or in others, knock it off LOL. This point fails

    7.) this point failed dude, deflecting wont change it. Your analogy was a complete bust. This point failed

    your analogy failed it takes rights away implying anything else is dishonest



    again i accept your submission, facts easily defeat those that are dishonest and you bailing out when every argument you brought up got destroyed and instead trying failed insults shows how desperate and how made you lost.

    Its ok, lick your wounds and come back when you have ONE single point or facts that stands.

    thanks for playing, you lose. do you REALLY want links to the rullings again because i will GLADLY provide them. I believe Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa are the 3. the others i think were were popular vote or legislative vote
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #360
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    1.)Not a threat, just notice, probably my last post in reply.

    2.)Here are the facts, rights are most often not absolute.

    Right now in my state, for example, a heterosexual man has the exact same rights and restrictions in the law as a homosexual man, no less and no more. That is called equal protection under the law. FACT.

    Fact: We both can marry legally. We can both marry under the exact same circumstances [ I can marry a woman who is of age, consenting...so can he ]. Able to prove that wrong?

    He cannot marry, in my state, another man. Neither can I. Equal? Exactly equal, yes.

    I also cannot marry my father, my mother, my sisters, my brothers, my daughters, my sons or any combination of those, I cannot marry more than one person at a time, etc... neither can he. We have the exact same rights and we have the exact same restrictions. Prove that wrong. FACTS.

    Exactly Equal Protection under the law for the both of us, in my state.
    1.) again its a smart move to retreat when you cant win
    2.) now to dismantle your "facts" of whcih you claimed that we have EQUAL rights.

    this will be so easy.

    first off there are supreme court justices that disagree and have rule that what you state is NOT equal i think its Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa

    next, which is BRILLIANT but also very true and a indirect way to argue is GENDER discrimination which has come up in some cases.

    man can marry woman
    woman cant marry woman

    gender discrimination and NOT equal

    bye bye to your "facts"

    so you are wrong sir, at best you saying its equal is nothign more than your opinion and its simply disingenuous to even think its equal.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 36 of 45 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •