Page 37 of 45 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 443

Thread: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

  1. #361
    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
    Yes yes, double down on the wrong.
    Nonsensical gibberish

    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.
    It is not absurd. What part is it that incest laws have to do with procreation do you not understand? Incest laws are put into place to prevent inbreeding. There is no procreation with gay sex.

    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.
    Projection noted. All of your responses are emotional arguments. Not rational arguments.

    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.
    Why do you open every response with a strawman. There has been no damage to marriage as an institution. Individual marriages fail for a variety of reasons, mainly because of human nature. You're also lying and making stuff up. Marriage has always been about children. There was never anything political about it until Liberals got their filthy hands on it and are now trying to trivialize it by changing the definition as it has been known since the beginning of human existence. Sisters marrying sisters and brothers marrying brothers is the exact same concept as gay marriage. Both wouldn't be real marriage. They are a sham. Pretend marriages.

    Not really, but you are good at being wrong so don't let me stop you.
    Really. You try and setup every response with a laughable strawman. When you can't refute facts you call people bigots. It's comical and embarrassing.

    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.
    Again, you are reduced to trivializing marriage because you don't have a logical argument why we need to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. Every example you cite can be made for any conceivable combination consenting adults wish to make and call "Marriage".

    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.
    Nonsensical gibberish and dodge noted. The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. It has never been man + ? or woman + ?.

  2. #362
    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.) 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.
    Sigh... State Supreme Court Justices are not gods, they are not our supreme rulers... and are often flat out wrong [ these three being cases in point]... but fortunately just in their own states...

    3 states, 47 to go huh? But you see, you've stirred us up now tho, we let it go before, now we are awake to the threat.

    Gender discrimination huh? Which gender is being discriminated against again? Women? Women can't marry women, huh. But men can't marry men, either. Both opposites can marry each other, though. Wow, exactly the same for both genders ... what's that called again...oh yeah, Equal. Exactly equal protection under the law.

  3. #363
    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.) 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
    Blah blah blah, LMAO, lol, LMAO again, your opinion, ha ha ha ha, rinse and repeat as many times as unnecessary....

    Delusions being free.

    So, yes, all that and more if it makes you feel better.

    Myself, I am here searching for challenges, learning experiences...truth... ciao.

  4. #364
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    1.)Sigh... State Supreme Court Justices are not gods, they are not our supreme rulers... and are often flat out wrong [ these three being cases in point]... but fortunately just in their own states...

    2.)3 states, 47 to go huh? But you see, you've stirred us up now tho, we let it go before, now we are awake to the threat.

    3.)Gender discrimination huh? Which gender is being discriminated against again? Women? Women can't marry women, huh. But men can't marry men, either. Both opposites can marry each other, though. Wow, exactly the same for both genders ... what's that called again...oh yeah, Equal. Exactly equal protection under the law.
    1.) never claimed them to be gods only pointing out that their rulings make your statement not factual :Shrug: but please deflect, spin and strawman some more
    2.) the number doesnt matter, your statment is still not factual, another failed deflection
    3.) both are being discriminated against, one can do something the other cant, you losr again and AGAIN, this proves your statment not ot be factual

    MAN you get desperate, ill never understand why people argue against facts, your statment was not factual. That has been proven.

    do you have something that proves otherwise? that is the topic, not any of you failed spin, not any of your OPINIONS LOL

    read again slowly lol

    DO you have any facts that prove otherwise?
    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

  5. #365
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Blah blah blah, LMAO, lol, LMAO again, your opinion, ha ha ha ha, rinse and repeat as many times as unnecessary....

    Delusions being free.

    So, yes, all that and more if it makes you feel better.

    Myself, I am here searching for challenges, learning experiences...truth... ciao.
    Translation: you still can not refute the facts present so you are deflecting and running away, thanks this was evident pages ago

    if you disagree by all means simply prove your statement to be more than opinion and or actually true, GO!
    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

  6. #366
    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.)

    ill never understand
    We are finally in agreement...

  7. #367
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    We are finally in agreement...
    you are right, I dont understand dishonest people and people that argue facts and for some reason you fully understand and embrace that talent and are exercising that now, ill never get it
    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

  8. #368
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Blah blah blah, LMAO, lol, LMAO again, your opinion, ha ha ha ha, rinse and repeat as many times as unnecessary....

    Delusions being free.

    So, yes, all that and more if it makes you feel better.

    Myself, I am here searching for challenges, learning experiences...truth... ciao.
    I don't think you are here for truth. I think you are here to proselytize via subterfuge.

  9. #369
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I don't think you are here for truth. I think you are here to proselytize via subterfuge.
    amen amen amen lol
    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. #370
    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
    It is not absurd. What part is it that incest laws have to do with procreation do you not understand? Incest laws are put into place to prevent inbreeding. There is no procreation with gay sex.
    What part of marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation don't you get? You are not required to procreate when married, and you are not restricted from procreation until you get married. There is no rules about procreation included in the government marriage contract. Oh, and gay people are mostly perfectly capable of procreating, and many even chose to. Some even by natural sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post

    Projection noted. All of your responses are emotional arguments. Not rational arguments.
    lack of retort noted. Your argument does nothing to rebut mine and is therefor invalid. See, i can do it too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Why do you open every response with a strawman.
    I see, you think a strawman is a good argument that you have no rebuttal to. Yes, i guess in that case i do open up most of my arguments to you with a strawman.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There has been no damage to marriage as an institution.
    Oh yeah, high divorce rates, and a general change in the family unit has certainly not happened in the past 100 years because of straights changing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Individual marriages fail for a variety of reasons, mainly because of human nature.
    Maybe we shouldn't be letting straight people get married if they cannot respect their commitments?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You're also lying and making stuff up. Marriage has always been about children.
    No, that is the romanticized modern version of it, but marriage has mainly been a financial and political power tool.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    There was never anything political about it until Liberals got their filthy hands on it and are now trying to trivialize it by changing the definition as it has been known since the beginning of human existence.
    OMG that is so awesomely ignorant and stupid i have actually lowered my opinion of you. Seriously, the history of marriage shows that it was often for the joining of families for economic and political power. I am pretty sure that humans started off screwing like animals and not giving too much care to marriage and partnerships. Humans are not naturally a monogamous creature. We did not come into existence with the rules of marriage tattooed to our hides by god. Marriage is a man made creation and therefor we govern it. But if i am wrong feel free to prove the existence of god and then show us god's declaration of the rules of marriage and prove to us that he wrote them. I'll wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Sisters marrying sisters and brothers marrying brothers is the exact same concept as gay marriage. Both wouldn't be real marriage. They are a sham. Pretend marriages.
    Well then sisters marrying brothers is the same concept as straight marriage. If you can remove incest from straight marriages then you can remove it from gay marriages also. Oh, and just to use your own silliness against you, since gay relationships do not lead to natural offspring as you said it is impossible for same gender siblings to breed with each other and therefor the incest argument goes completely out of the window because they cannot combine their genetic material and risk defective children. You are failing on so many levels.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Really. You try and setup every response with a laughable strawman. When you can't refute facts you call people bigots. It's comical and embarrassing.
    tell you what, when you post a fact i will refute it. Since that has never happened i think i will just stick to knocking the crap out of your emotional and rational BS.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Again, you are reduced to trivializing marriage because you don't have a logical argument why we need to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. Every example you cite can be made for any conceivable combination consenting adults wish to make and call "Marriage".
    Just pointing out that marriage in the governmental sense is a civil contract of partnership between two people which has no bearing on religion, god, or even the sexual laws of the state. You seemed to be very confused and wrong about what marriage actually is, and I really was just trying to help explain it to you. But feel free not to learn and to keep spouting crazy BS like marriage has been around since the beginning of human existence. I am sure that will help your reputation out greatly.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Nonsensical gibberish and dodge noted. The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. It has never been man + ? or woman + ?.
    Considering you are unaware of arranged marriages and that you think marriage law has been around since the beginning of human existence and has always been the same i am pretty sure you are not capable of telling us what marriage has always been. but don't let your overwhelming and very obvious ignorance on the subject stop you from helping me out.

Page 37 of 45 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •