• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

EdwinWillers said:
It matters to the homosexual, for that is - again - the basis on which they are contesting various laws they deem as "unfair."
Click to expand...

Ahh there is your confusion, I base my opinions on my own thoughts, not those of someone else.

EdwinWillers said:
Please provide an example where the government has singled out, targeted homosexuals for unequal treatment, let alone proceeded to treat them so. I suspect the only "examples" you'll generate will be those that prohibit homosexuals from marrying and/or enjoying the same benefits society confers on normal married couples. In that case, the government isn't "singling out" homosexuals, nor is it "targeting" homosexuals so as to treat them unequally. At the very worst, they are nothing more than laws clarifying the intent and purpose of laws already on the books - laws which would never be necessary were it not for those individuals presuming to be discriminated against by virtue of their sexual behaviors.
Click to expand...

Prior to the recent repeal of DATA, known homosexual were barred from military service. Prior to 2003, if a woman performed oral sex on a man she wasn't arrested. If, in many states, a man performed oral sex on another man they were arrested and criminally prosecuted. That was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas.


EdwinWillers said:
The homosexual lobby is fighting hard to legitimize their behavior in society's eyes, to remove the stigma of its deviancy and perversity, to enable them to engage in their behavior without any stigma, without any shame. This is but the latest battleground in that fight. Nothing more. It is a "rights" issue only because they want it to be. Period.
Click to expand...


8qzvzyfxj0a1vpjj8_yyzw.jpg


And they are doing a pretty good job of dispelling past stigma's and moving forward. Social views have pretty much reversed since around 2000.



EdwinWillers said:
Ahem - marriage benefits received by man and woman, husband and wife are by definition "special rights." They are special by virtue of them being different than rights and privileges we give to many others in society - e.g. singles.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however a single person is not barred from entering into a Civil Marriage.


EdwinWillers said:
So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...

Same-sex couples ARE NOT seeking to receive the special privileges affored to Civilly Married different sex couples while remaining single, they are seeking to have equal access to the status of Civil Marriage.

EdwinWillers said:
So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...

The floor is yours, please provide a list of legal benefits that will be available under the law to same-sex Civilly Married couples that will not be available to different-sex Civilly Married couples. If there are, then those would be "special rights", if there are none - then it is "equal rights".


EdwinWillers said:
A distinction without meaning. Marriage benefit laws are, by definition discriminatory - and always have been! By your own definition, the evaluate categorically rather than individually - SINGLES being the perfect example for those laws have always discriminated between singles and marrieds.
Click to expand...

Of course Civil Marriage laws are discriminatory. There is no other logical conclusion. Discriminatory is not a "bad" word, it describes a condition. Government discriminates all the time. The military discriminates against fat people - there is a compelling government interest regarding the performance of military duties. States discriminate against blind people in regards to Drivers Licenses - there is a compelling government interest regarding safety on public roads. Etc.

I've always found this line of reasoning less then productive because - get this - single people are not barred from entering into Civil Marriage. As a condition of Civil Marriage then "Singles" can enter into "Marriage" and become eligible.


EdwinWillers said:
To you it may be a dodge, but the simple fact of the matter is that putting forth two lengthy lists of identical adjectives describing two "couples" where the lists differ by but one adjective does not a valid argument make. Moreover --- when that one adjective is the sole differentiator of the two "couples" and deals strictly with homosexual behavior, you're not only not advancing your argument but you're hurting it. And you're CERTAINLY not doing it any favors from a legal perspective either.
Click to expand...

Yes the "differentiators" define the "like couples" for "similar situations" and show that the scope of the question. The compelling government interest must be relative to the characteristic between like situated couples that is different. The only difference is the gender composition of the couples.

It prevents fallacious arguements like "well gays can't have children", but then infertile heterosexuals can have children either but yet are allowed to Civilly Marry. As matter of fact there are some cases where heterosexual couples have to prove they CAN'T have children before being allowed to Civilly Marry.


EdwinWillers said:
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't. And to compare deviant sexual behavior with interracial marriage is to take us back to my argument at the very beginning of this thread. It's absurd on its face. So you have your answer - and I daresay you've received it many times in the past ten years you've been asking it - but I daresay you'll never acknowledge the cogency of any argument that deviates from your own - which isn't a little ironic if you think about it.
Click to expand...

No it's not "absurd" on it's face. The structure of the arguments used to deny interracial marriage are very similar to the structure of the arguments used to deny same-sex marriage. As an example:

"Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." "​


History News Network
As the Supreme Court Weighs Gay Marriage, a Look at Its Last Major Marriage Ruling - Press Past (usnews.com)
Arguments Against Interracial Marriage Identical to Arguments Today » Dispatches from the Culture Wars
How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire


>>>>
 
SBu said:
I'm shocked that gay marriage gets this kind of attention on a thread. 100 pages of responses and counterpoints? Why do people care this much?
Click to expand...


fear, bigotry, hate, and or ignorance
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
also its not 37 states, many people inside those states are fine with equal rights, just like most of the country and when some of those states have pushed those cases to the SSC they lost based on equality, law, rights and discrimination. the best part is it was the BANS those states did that helped them lose.

SO try your eyes because equal rights for gays is coming and discrimination is losing.

except its factually true that he did win the debate. he has facts and you do not

and the best part about this country which you are obviously to uneducated on this topic to know about is, in REALITY, it wont effect you, your marriage, what you think of it or risk it in any way what so ever. SO your failed fear tactic and straw man nobody cares about. YOU will still be allowed to conduct your marriage however you see fit. EVen though your views are too selfish, bigoted and anti-american to let others have theirs. You should thank god you live in a country like the US. Or you could always move out. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Its 37 states, talk about not dealing with reality, what a joke position. Did you agree with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court...or Plessy v Ferguson? The Supremes are human and they make mistakes, often grave mistakes...so get a grip on the real Reality. The Supreme Court has no business telling states what their marriage laws are, there is no jurisdiction there. As has been proven many times before, and I am not about to bang my head against the wall arguing with any lunkheads who want to argue it further...if one didn't understand it before with so much explanation, I am going to suppose one does not have the candle power to cogitate it out. All rights are currently equal...all men have the same rights, all women have the same rights, whether gay or straight. There is no discrimination. Sorry.

And your obvious and misplaced bias is showing my man, but thanks, as you would say, for playing, game over. Bub-bye...and wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh as regards your other positions... bigots should look themselves in the mirror, maybe even mirrored glasses will do... like you said, those who do not like the way we do things here in the good old US of A are always welcome to move elsewhere...I hear they like your type gay views in Canada, eh?

Take your failed "fail" calls to someone who might care and perhaps who is not really into debate and just wants to bicker with you... I think you will be a lot more equally matched then, speaking of equality.
 
AGENT J said:
fear, bigotry, hate, and or ignorance
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.
 
WorldWatcher said:
#1 - Whether homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic or not is irrelevant to the issue.
Click to expand...
Actually, it appears that it's very relevant. Heterosexuality is very different than homosexuality. Heterosexuality fulfills a biological need for a species to continue. Homosexuality is outside this realm as a completely different entity.

It's apples and oranges. While they both are fruit an apple shouldn't be classified as citrus just because it wants the same benefit that being uniquely citrus affords.

ALL citizens a due equal protection of the laws and no group is to be denied such treatment unless there is a compelling government reason for such unequal treatment.
Click to expand...
. What are homosexuals not protected against? This is a noble sounding statement but I don't see how this is an argument for homosexual unions being termed marriage.


When discriminatory laws are formulated in a capricious and invidious manner such laws can be challenged and the government then has the burden to demonstrate a valid compelling interest has to why such discrimination should continue.
Click to expand...
The word discrimination needs to be defined.

discrimination
— noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.
3.Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

What you are describing with your use of the word discrimination is actually irrational discrimination. While I will agree with you that laws are meant to discriminate (rationally), I would like to understand how you feel the laws are irrational on this subject.


(And neither "tradition" or "My religion doesn't agree with it" are valid secular reasons.)
Click to expand...
if this is directed toward me then this is a straw man argument as I have made no such claims.

When such a basis is challenged the comparison then is make on like situated groups to explain why one group is excluded (illegal) and the other group is included (legal).
Click to expand...
This is why I pointed out how these groups are not similar. Can you logically describe how they share a common feature that universally links them to the civil liberties movement?

So here is your chance to answer a question I've been asking for well over a decade. To date no one has been able to supply a cogent answer as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states), yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?
Click to expand...
your argument assumes that an individuals success at the goal of producing offspring is the discerning factor in defining the term marriage. It is not. Heterosexuality is the describing factor.


**************************************************


#2 - Please cite any Civil Law banning Civil Marriage based on sexual behavior. Last time I checked each and every one of them banned Same-sex Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the parties involved and gender is based on genetics and therefore is an "innate" characteristic.
Click to expand...
there is no need to create laws that ban marriage. Only laws that define it.

And no, it is not a quality of the "individual" that is the measurement. In other words because a lesbian is allowed to marry a man, then she is treated consistently under the law. If the basis was the "individual only", then the Loving case would have been decided in Virginia's favor since both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter (to later become Mr. & Mrs. Loving) could both Civilly Marry, just not each other. The measurement was how they were treated as a couple.
Click to expand...
The qualification or disqualification for marriage is based on behavior. Not on the color of ones skin. Virginia V. Loving's ruling was based on Eugenetics and racism. If the case was about Mr. Loving and Mr. Jeter, they would not have been married. Trying to equate homosexual behavior with physical traits is sophistry.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Its 37 states, talk about not dealing with reality, what a joke position.
2.) Did you agree with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court...or Plessy v Ferguson? The Supremes are human and they make mistakes, often grave mistakes...so get a grip on the real Reality.
3.)The Supreme Court has no business telling states what their marriage laws are, there is no jurisdiction there. As has been proven many times before, and I am not about to bang my head against the wall arguing with any lunkheads who want to argue it further...if one didn't understand it before with so much explanation, I am going to suppose one does not have the candle power to cogitate it out.
4.) All rights are currently equal...all men have the same rights, all women have the same rights, whether gay or straight. There is no discrimination. Sorry.

5.) And your obvious and misplaced bias is showing my man, but thanks, as you would say, for playing, game over. Bub-bye...and wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh as regards your other positions...
6.) bigots should look themselves in the mirror, maybe even mirrored glasses will do...
7.) like you said, those who do not like the way we do things here in the good old US of A are always welcome to move elsewhere...
8.) I hear they like your type gay views in Canada, eh?
9.) Take your failed "fail"l calls to someone might care and perhaps who is not really into debate and just wants to bicker with you... I think you will be a lot more equally matched then, speaking of equality.
Click to expand...

1.) actually its not because of the people in it, thats reality, you know how presidents care about NY, FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS cause of population? yeah same basic concept lol that's REALITY
2.) yes all human make mistakes
3.) you are free to have that opinion but history and facts prove you wrong. good move not arguing against those facts not injuring your head arguing against them.
4.) also not the case has proven by recent SSC cases
5.) no bias at all i stand for equal rights and not discrimination. nice try but its a fail. your welcome, game is over and you are losing. dont cry about it
6.) let me know when you do this
7.) im happy we the US is fighting for equality, dont see me crying about it you see me supporting it, i like that my country protects my fellow Americans rights
8.) yes Canada is another place they like equality and you wont be happy in, so now you have identified two place that wont make you happy, your first steps are already done
9.) your angry and emotion is showing lol see which one of us is happy? its me. and i accept your concession. Let us know how russia is,
 
EdwinWillers said:
Yeah, that's another way of stating what we've been asserting re the homosexual lobby. Kudos for stating it so succinctly.
Click to expand...

you're welcome, i like spreading truth
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Somerville said:
Please explain to this 'clueless' leftie, precisely HOW does same sex marriage "risk" the ceremony and legal standing of marriage for opposite sex folks.
Click to expand...

Well, let me count the ways...marriage, which the left has made myriad attempts to discredit by pushing easier divorce rules, have pushed hard to make it politically incorrect to shame those who would give birth outside of marriage which was and should be the proper way to have children, the folks that have advocated so hard and passed legislation for Great Society programs that in effect push the father out of the equation and now you want to make it a laughing stock by going against thousands of years of Western tradition, that goes against the tenets of any of the major religions. The fact that this will unlock other doors, other Pandora boxes in which the demons will destroy, make a mockery, as does SSM, of the idea of marriage. Once you erase the traditional lines, once you go with the silliness of letting anybody that "truly loves" each other be the only real criteria for allowance of marriage, you are going to get brothers marrying sisters, brothers or any combination of such, marrying each other, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers, sons and daughters marrying either parent they want [ as long as they are of age and are "in love" ] or even both...once tradition goes and that line breached, who is to say a three year old, since all sense will be long since be gone, cannot marry? As long as they love each other its okay, right?

An analogy might be when we had social promotions, then you could not really tell who had earned a diploma and so the diploma started becoming a sham...meant little. If anyone can be awarded a diploma, if anybody can be married, then it means little if not nothing.

The unintended consequences of what it is your side proposes, for the selfish sake of such a few, is absolutely astounding. There, now that you have some clues one cannot any longer claim to be ignorant, clueless.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, let me count the ways...marriage, which the left has made myriad attempts to discredit by pushing easier divorce rules, have pushed hard to make it politically incorrect to shame those who would give birth outside of marriage which was and should be the proper way to have children, the folks that have advocated so hard and passed legislation for Great Society programs that in effect push the father out of the equation and now you want to make it a laughing stock by going against thousands of years of Western tradition, that goes against the tenets of any of the major religions. The fact that this will unlock other doors, other Pandora boxes in which the demons will destroy, make a mockery, as does SSM, of the idea of marriage. Once you erase the traditional lines, once you go with the silliness of letting anybody that "truly loves" each other be the only real criteria for allowance of marriage, you are going to get brothers marrying sisters, brothers or any combination of such, marrying each other, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers, sons and daughters marrying either parent they want [ as long as they are of age and are "in love" ] or even both...once tradition goes and that line breached, who is to say a three year old, since all sense will be long since be gone, cannot marry? As long as they love each other its okay, right?

An analogy might be when we had social promotions, then you could not really tell who had earned a diploma and so the diploma started becoming a sham...meant little. If anyone can be awarded a diploma, if anybody can be married, then it means little if not nothing.

The unintended consequences of what it is your side proposes, for the selfish sake of such a few, is absolutely astounding. There, now that you have some clues one cannot any longer claim to be ignorant, clueless.
Click to expand...


Thought so, nothing more than religiously-based bias against humans who don't think as you
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
1.) actually its not because of the people in it, thats reality, you know how presidents care about NY, FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS cause of population? yeah same basic concept lol that's REALITY
2.) yes all human make mistakes
3.) you are free to have that opinion but history and facts prove you wrong. good move not arguing against those facts not injuring your head arguing against them.
4.) also not the case has proven by recent SSC cases
5.) no bias at all i stand for equal rights and not discrimination. nice try but its a fail. your welcome, game is over and you are losing. dont cry about it
6.) let me know when you do this
7.) im happy we the US is fighting for equality, dont see me crying about it you see me supporting it, i like that my country protects my fellow Americans rights
8.) yes Canada is another place they like equality and you wont be happy in, so now you have identified two place that wont make you happy, your first steps are already done
9.) your angry and emotion is showing lol see which one of us is happy? its me. and i accept your concession. Let us know how russia is,
Click to expand...

Try to make some sense and then maybe we can chat. Besides, we have already argued all this and you lost, not going to fight a battle I already won with someone who won't even remember it...I mean, why?

Oh, you are happy all right, blissfully obliviously happy no doubt, with those positions...wow...lol... good luck with all that. Me? I am happy enough not to waste any more of my time. Ciao.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Try to make some sense and then maybe we can chat. Besides, we have already argued all this and you lost, not going to fight a battle I already won with someone who won't even remember it...I mean, why?
2.)Oh, you are happy all right, blissfully obliviously happy no doubt, with those positions...wow...lol... good luck with all that. Me? I am happy enough not to waste any more of my time. Ciao.
Click to expand...

1.) wrong again, facts have never lost to your lies, FAIL
let me know when you have anything that backs up your failed claims, lies never defeat facts
2.) again yes im very happy discrimination is losing and equality is winning, i accpet your concession and dont forget let me us know what Russia is like
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Somerville said:
Thought so, nothing more than religiously-based bias against humans who don't think as you
Click to expand...

you expected something else? every post he makes is fallacy based, flat out lies and or bigoted views and gets destroyed by any poster that tries.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Somerville said:
Thought so, nothing more than religiously-based bias against humans who don't think as you
Click to expand...
Good non comeback. Empty but deliciously and mercifully succinct in the saying of nothing. Thanks.

PS...remember, you cannot anymore make the lefty clueless claim. Now you know.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
you expected something else? every post he makes is fallacy based, flat out lies and or bigoted views and gets destroyed by any poster that tries.
Click to expand...
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:
Click to expand...


I'm not happy because I really dislike bigotry and I encounter far too much in our society. I'm one of the privileged ones, European descent, affluent, college educated, well traveled - so when I see those not as privileged as I am, I try to do something to change the situation. Others seem to prefer returning to a time when only those like myself had any opportunity. I think that would be incredibly stupid but some folks don't see it that way, for them any change in their privileged status is discrimination against the ones who 'deserve' societal preference
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
Except by you or any other lib...ha ha ha...hurts I know...but you are happy, obviously obliviously blissfully happy...so smile...ha ha ha... with your positions on everything, what else ya got, might as well smile...:lol:
Click to expand...

i dont even know what that says? im myself am a horrible typer and i still cant make that out
also im not a lib, just another failure by you,

you in russia yet?
any facts to support your failed claims yet?

let us know!
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Somerville said:
I'm not happy because I really dislike bigotry and I encounter far too much in our society. I'm one of the privileged ones, European descent, affluent, college educated, well traveled - so when I see those not as privileged as I am, I try to do something to change the situation. Others seem to prefer returning to a time when only those like myself had any opportunity. I think that would be incredibly stupid but some folks don't see it that way, for them any change in their privileged status is discrimination against the ones who 'deserve' societal preference
Click to expand...
Wow, sounds like maybe a lot of projection going on there.

You are a privileged white liberal self saddled with white guilt because you have not, perhaps, earned what you have. But to make such vapid statements about people wanting only those of European descent to be "privileged" speaks volumes about who you might be...hard to tell specifically, but you seem to feel that your jaundiced and inaccurate view is the one that should be somehow the "privileged" view.

I see what liberalism has done to destroy the foundations of my once strong, once very proud and still yet a great nation, even though you folks have us staggering, teetering under all this massive regulation, massive amounts of legislation, all these cries of victimhood and all this anything goes attitude... its suicidal and most of us do not want to sign on to that pact of mutual death.

Opportunity, while more limited under the current president, still abounds in this nation, has for a long time...just have to keep clean and work hard. Some will fall thru the cracks but most will go from being poor, as I was upon graduating from high school, to right up into the middle class somewhere...or even higher. Trying to pay my own way through college [ there just weren't very many scholarships for white males, still aren't...its not like the majority of those who are poor are not white] on a lot of peanut butter and bread.

In any event, the majority get to make the rules, we have time honored traditions that have proven themselves over the years...you have no answers, you just feel guilty and this surface thought seems to get allayed in you if you just let all "those folks that want something" just, well, just let them have it...who cares what distress and calamities it may bring in the future, they will be happy for a few seconds and so its all worth it... who needs a strong America anyhow, right?

College educated is more and more becoming synonymous with not having even a shred of common sense. Thank god I self-educated on reality after my indoctrination at university.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
i dont even know what that says? im myself am a horrible typer and i still cant make that out
also im not a lib, just another failure by you,

you in russia yet?
any facts to support your failed claims yet?

let us know!
Click to expand...
I cannot help you with your reading comprehension, you will just have to work on that...and you are a lib, you may not know it, but yeah...very liberal. bubbye
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
I cannot help you with your reading comprehension, you will just have to work on that...
2.) and you are a lib, you may not know it, but yeah...very liberal. bubbye
Click to expand...

1.) thats not this issue and i can prove that fact if you like so your post look more silly
2.) nope, fact is im not

any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
1.) thats not this issue and i can prove that fact if you like so your post look more silly
2.) nope, fact is im not

any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts
Click to expand...
AJ, you just do what you need to do... I have no control over that...but it is a part of the issue, of course.

Speaking of of course, of course you are a lib, maybe you have a few conservative views, but on this and just about anything else we have "chatted" about, amongst all the fails and prove you wrongs is a very liberal guy with a very liberal, read indecorous and faulty, manner of debate/discussion. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you. Now, really, I have done all I can here, you will have to get more guidance elsewhere...
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Gaugingcatenate said:
AJ, you just do what you need to do... I have no control over that...but it is a part of the issue, of course.

2.)Speaking of of course, of course you are a lib, maybe you have a few conservative views, but on this and just about anything else we have "chatted" about, amongst all the fails and prove you wrongs is a very liberal guy with a very liberal, read indecorous and faulty, manner of debate/discussion. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you. Now, really, I have done all I can here, you will have to get more guidance elsewhere...
Click to expand...


translation: no you still got nothing and arent man enough to discuss facts. We already knew that, this is why your posts get destroyed by poster after poster. You provide us with great entertainment.

1.) nope its what you wrote, words that dont make sense, repeating words etc.
2.) nope im factually not, repeating this lie will never make it true only me laugh harded at your failed posts.

facts prove you wrong again, i love it, please dont stop.

any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts

lets see if next post you can stay on topic and actually provide any facts to the conversation
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

AGENT J said:
translation: no you still got nothing and arent man enough to discuss facts. We already knew that, this is why your posts get destroyed by poster after poster. You provide us with great entertainment.

1.) nope its what you wrote, words that dont make sense, repeating words etc.
2.) nope im factually not, repeating this lie will never make it true only me laugh harded at your failed posts.

facts prove you wrong again, i love it, please dont stop.

any facts to support your failed claims yep? guess not
let us know when you are ready to man up and talk facts

lets see if next post you can stay on topic and actually provide any facts to the conversation
Click to expand...
:rofl Got straw? :doh
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

EdwinWillers said:
:rofl Got straw? :doh
Click to expand...

translation: you have none either and are also trying deflection.
nobody is fooled we just all continue laughing at your failed posts lol
lets see if next post you can stay on topic and actually provide any facts to the conversation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom