Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2735363738 LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 373

Thread: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Showdow

  1. #361
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    1.)Dude, seriously, I am only able to visit these forums once in a while now because of more career responsibilities, but damn man, every time I come here you have another two three threads on gays?
    2.)Are you gay?
    3.)How could anyone not gay be this concerned with gay marriage? Are you projecting?


    Tim-
    1.) aww thats too bad
    2.) nope
    3.) yeah weird right? why would an american care about stopping the discrimination of other Americans and them being persecuted and denied equal rights. The nerve of me, its almost like i care about rights. Its almost like I care and i want the rights and freedoms that i have to be extended to my other fellow Americans how could i be so unselfish and non-hypocritical. Damn whats wrong with me. <end sarcasm>

    did you think this would work?
    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. #362
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) aww thats too bad
    2.) nope
    3.) yeah weird right? why would an american care about stopping the discrimination of other Americans and them being persecuted and denied equal rights. The nerve of me, its almost like i care about rights. Its almost like I care and i want the rights and freedoms that i have to be extended to my other fellow Americans how could i be so unselfish and non-hypocritical. Damn whats wrong with me. <end sarcasm>

    did you think this would work?
    Right wingers:

    1) Wonders why a heterosexual would defend the rights of gays

    2) Defends Wal Mart
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #363
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) aww thats too bad
    2.) nope
    3.) yeah weird right? why would an american care about stopping the discrimination of other Americans and them being persecuted and denied equal rights. The nerve of me, its almost like i care about rights. Its almost like I care and i want the rights and freedoms that i have to be extended to my other fellow Americans how could i be so unselfish and non-hypocritical. Damn whats wrong with me. <end sarcasm>

    did you think this would work?
    Work? What do you mean, work? I asked an honest question. Clearly the rights of gays (as your posting habits clearly indicate) are paramount above all other rights of American's.. You seem obsessed with their plight to a point of crusading. Not your typical average American interest on the issue. I felt my question was fair, and to the point based on your history. Don't take it personal, I've been called gay myself because of my opposition to gay rights.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

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

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    1.)Work? What do you mean, work? I asked an honest question.
    2.) Clearly the rights of gays (as your posting habits clearly indicate) are paramount above all other rights of American's..
    3.) You seem obsessed with their plight to a point of crusading. Not your typical average American interest on the issue.
    4.)I felt my question was fair, and to the point based on your history.
    5.) Don't take it personal
    6.) I've been called gay myself because of my opposition to gay rights.


    Tim-
    1.) sorry i just dont believe that with your history
    2.) clearly 100% false and theres no logic or facts to support that fantasy l
    3.) nope just think discrimination, bigotry and the denial of equal rights of this magnitude is disgusting
    4.) fair? any questions are fair IMO, just not honest
    5.) theres nothign you could do i would take personally, this is the internet
    6.) meaningless but thanks for sharing
    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
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) sorry i just dont believe that with your history
    2.) clearly 100% false and theres no logic or facts to support that fantasy l
    3.) nope just think discrimination, bigotry and the denial of equal rights of this magnitude is disgusting
    4.) fair? any questions are fair IMO, just not honest
    5.) theres nothign you could do i would take personally, this is the internet
    6.) meaningless but thanks for sharing
    You're soooo gullible..

    1. Sorry but that is 100% false, and you have no logic or facts to support that fantasy.
    2. Well, I'll leave that to anyone that knows or follows your posting habits to decide for themselves. I suppose I should have said that the rights of gays supersedes constitutional rights that existed before the right to be gay and married. Like, religion, association, speech ya know that kind of stuff. You've demonstrated in several recent threads that the religious rights and conscience of those with faith is less worthy of support than the right for gays to marry, and buy cake, or be photographed at weddings, but like I said, you're pretty sure my claim is "100% dales and not supported by logic or facts"..
    3. Magnitude is a way for you to equivocate when someone replies to you. It allows you to provide a degree or defining parameter to your statement. It's playing semantics by avoiding the central point, and it's WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME. It's how you argue on internet forums. Be clever enough to offer subtle escape routes for your opinions and then claim that you have the facts, or usually that the other person doesn't have them. For instance, you claim discrimination is bad, but we all do it, so how bad can it be? You almost never seem to be able to use the correct definition in proper context for the use of the word bigotry (Don't worry most on this forum have the same problems), and finally equal rights is an a priori statement because it portends to make a presumption that there are equal rights regardless of contribution, or knowledge thereof. One must seriously ask themselves what rights does one require that they be equal in order to feel satisfied that everyone must receive them. The point is that a right, no offense to my religious friends, is granted and assigned by men, and women, in the position of power at any given time. Potential human beings do not have rights in the USA, although some feel comfortable enough to claim they are pro-choice, but what exactly are they pro-choice about? Life? Women's rights? You see the dilemma in your logic?
    4. My question was honest. I think you're gay because of the fixation you have about gay rights. It's NOT typical of your average response to such issues by average American's. You're either gay, or close to someone that is, is my theory.
    5. Baloney, your very response to my post, and to various other posts that challenge you indicate a very large ego. You could NOT resist yourself, and you know it.
    6. It's not meaningless, it illustrates my willingness to share how I myself have been called gay simply by my posting on a single issue. I am however not gay, but could see why some might think I might be. It is meaningful because it allows me to express the same sentiment towards you that was aimed at me, albeit for distinctly different motivations. I find that fascinating.


    Enjoy your day, AGENTJ..


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #366
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    1.)You're soooo gullable..

    2.). Sorry but that is 100% false, and you have no logic or facts to support that fantasy.
    3. Well, I'll leave that to anyone that knows or follows your posting habits to decide for themselves.
    4.)I suppose I should have said that the rights of gays supercedes constitutional rights that existed before the right to be gay and married. Like, religion, association, speech ya know that kind of stuff. You've demonstrated in several recent threads that the religious rights and conscience of those with faith is less worthy of support than the right for gays to marry, and buy cake, or be photographed at weddings, but like I said, you're pretty sure my claim is "100% dales and not supported by logic or facts"..
    5.). Magnitude is a way for you to equivocate when someone replies to you. It allows you to provide a degree or defining parameter to your statement. It's playing semantics by avoiding the central point, and it's WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME. It's how you argue on internet forums. Be clever enough to offer subtle escape routes for your opinions and then claim that you have the facts, or usually that the other person doesn't have them. For instance, you claim discrimination is bad, but we all do it, so how bad can it be? You almost never seem to be able to use the correct definition in proper context for the use of the word bigotry (Don't worry most on this forum have the same problems), and finally equal rights is an a priori statement because it portends to make a presumption that there are equal rights regardless of contribution, or knowledge thereof. One must seriously ask themselves what rights does one require that they be equal in order to feel satisfied that everyone must receive them. The point is that a right, no offense to my religious friends, is granted and assigned by men, and women, in the position of power at any given time. Potential human beings do not have rights in the USA, although some feel comfortable enough to claim they are pro choice, but what exactly are they pro choice about? Life? Women's rights? You see the dilemma in your logic?
    6.) My question was honest. I think you're gay because of the fixation you have about gay rights. It's NOT typical of your average response to such issues by average American's. You're either gay, or close to someone that is, is my theory.
    7.) It's not meaningless, it illustrates my willingness to share how I myself have been called gay simply by my posting on a single issue. I am however not gay, but could see why some might think I might be. It is meaningful because it allows me to express the same sentiment towards you that was aimed at me, albeit for distinctly different motivations. I find that fascinating.

    8.) Enjoy your day, AGENTJ..


    Tim-
    1.) accept i didnt fall for anything, fail
    2.) sorry still dont believe you and theres nothign to make me believe you, your history proves otherwise
    3.) thats MORE than fine by me lol
    4.) and you would still be factually wrong, all those things are intact and those examples dont infringe on them at all in realty has courts have determined and just like the 100% of other cases bout discrimination. SO yes its 100% false and based on zero logic. If you disagree by all means PLEASE give me an example i support that is different form all the precedence already set in law and rights. Id love to read it.
    5.) wow thats a lot to say and to say nothing. YOur deflection is noted, sorry i care about fighting discrimination and the denial of equal rights. No dilemma in my logic at all because i base it on objective reality, facts and logic. If you have factual example of any of those those failed opinions id love to read them also. Im guessing ill get crickets or deflections back for this also or something that i will easily destroy.
    6.) you are free to think this and i take no offense to it at all but you're theory is factual wrong.
    7.) nope still meaningless whether you find it fascinating or not.
    8.) always do when posting against you, thanks, ill be waiting
    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

  7. #367
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) accept i didnt fall for anything, fail
    2.) sorry still dont believe you and theres nothign to make me believe you, your history proves otherwise
    3.) thats MORE than fine by me lol
    4.) and you would still be factually wrong, all those things are intact and those examples dont infringe on them at all in realty has courts have determined and just like the 100% of other cases bout discrimination. SO yes its 100% false and based on zero logic. If you disagree by all means PLEASE give me an example i support that is different form all the precedence already set in law and rights. Id love to read it.
    5.) wow thats a lot to say and to say nothing. YOur deflection is noted, sorry i care about fighting discrimination and the denial of equal rights. No dilemma in my logic at all because i base it on objective reality, facts and logic. If you have factual example of any of those those failed opinions id love to read them also. Im guessing ill get crickets or deflections back for this also or something that i will easily destroy.
    6.) you are free to think this and i take no offense to it at all but you're theory is factual wrong.
    7.) nope still meaningless whether you find it fascinating or not.
    8.) always do when posting against you, thanks, ill be waiting

    1. You did you just don’t realize it yet.
    2. No need to apologize.
    3. Me too.
    4. Do you deny that just recently a wedding cake store was forced to shut down due to militant harassment by gays for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, and that the state is looking into civil penalties, or that a photographer was also under investigation for refusing to photograph a gay couples wedding? These people were refusing based on their religious convictions and using their rights to association, and religious expression as a basis for their refusal. My illustration was to counter your claim that you hold all rights as sacrosanct. Clearly you do not, since in those threads you supported the actions by the state and those of the gays who you deemed were discriminated against. The moral here is that I showed you with examples of how your claim to uphold the rights of all Americans to be a false and 100% incorrect claim. You either lied or are confused.
    5. It’s a lot to say for a reason. It’s not a deflection, it is/was an attempt to invoke a deeper thinking from your intellect. You claim in your signature that you support a woman right to choose, and you also claim to support human rights, well these seem to contradict on another. In reality you support a women’s right to either kill or keep her unborn human child. Yet, ironically, if she chooses to kill her unborn human child, you feel as though this unborn human child has no human rights? This point was made to illustrate to you the incoherence of your logic. You used the word “magnitude” as if this was to somehow absolve you of some responsibility to the topics truth. Killing an unborn human child does not rise to any degree of magnitude worth pursuing a stance against the killing of unborn human children, yet gays allowed to marry is of the utmost importance to you.
    6. Ok, so you’re not gay. I can accept that.
    7. You don’t find it fascinating that two people with diametrically opposing viewpoints on a topic are they themselves accused of possibly being the very object that they are discussing? Let me break it down for you. The scenario is, you’re gay, and for gay rights, and, or, I’m gay and against gay rights. In the converse, you’re not gay and for gay rights, and I’m not gay and against gay rights? That doesn’t fascinate you in a syntax sort of way?


    Well, I’m glad that we had our little talk.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #368
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    1. 1.)You did you just don’t realize it yet.
      2.)No need to apologize.
      3.)Me too.
      4.)Do you deny that just recently a wedding cake store was forced to shut down due to militant harassment by gays for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, and that the state is looking into civil penalties, or that a photographer was also under investigation for refusing to photograph a gay couples wedding? These people were refusing based on their religious convictions and using their rights to association, and religious expression as a basis for their refusal. My illustration was to counter your claim that you hold all rights as sacrosanct. Clearly you do not, since in those threads you supported the actions by the state and those of the gays who you deemed were discriminated against. The moral here is that I showed you with examples of how your claim to uphold the rights of all Americans to be a false and 100% incorrect claim. You either lied or are confused.
      5.)It’s a lot to say for a reason. It’s not a deflection, it is/was an attempt to invoke a deeper thinking from your intellect. You claim in your signature that you support a woman right to choose, and you also claim to support human rights, well these seem to contradict on another. In reality you support a women’s right to either kill or keep her unborn human child. Yet, ironically, if she chooses to kill her unborn human child, you feel as though this unborn human child has no human rights? This point was made to illustrate to you the incoherence of your logic. You used the word “magnitude” as if this was to somehow absolve you of some responsibility to the topics truth. Killing an unborn human child does not rise to any degree of magnitude worth pursuing a stance against the killing of unborn human children, yet gays allowed to marry is of the utmost importance to you.
      6.) Ok, so you’re not gay. I can accept that.
      7.) You don’t find it fascinating that two people with diametrically opposing viewpoints on a topic are they themselves accused of possibly being the very object that they are discussing? Let me break it down for you. The scenario is, you’re gay, and for gay rights, and, or, I’m gay and against gay rights. In the converse, you’re not gay and for gay rights, and I’m not gay and against gay rights? That doesn’t fascinate you in a syntax sort of way?

    8.)Well, I’m glad that we had our little talk.

    Tim-
    1.) nope i love smacking your posts around
    2.) your right, the truth is never sorry
    3.) yep because facts defeat you no matter what you or anybody thinks
    4.) i dont deny any of that with in reason, your colorful language is meaningless to me but what really happened is people broke the law and discriminated and violated rights and that would be true for genders, races, religions, sexual orientations, physical/mental handicaps etc. YOU want to exclude "gays" but thats factually not the case. No confusion at all just dealing in FACTS again and not biased. SO yes i am about upholding the law/rights for ALL OF US. nice try though
    5.) as i have explained before in those threads actually it is spot on with human rights, It is factually impossible to ban abortions or be total pro-choice without violating human rights. SO you fail again but please feel free to take the discussion to one of those threads. SO your point fails and is defeated by facts like the rest of your failed points. Unless of course you can explain to me how its possible to not violate human rights in the abortion debate. See the fact is intellect like that is too deep for your biased to go. This is fun. FACTS: no contradiction, no way not to violate human rights. you lose.
    6.) your acceptance is meaningless
    7.) no its just deflection in one way or another by you or the accusers. Not interesting at all.
    8.) me too, im glad you gave me these points to destory
    Last edited by AGENT J; 09-23-13 at 08:59 PM.
    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

  9. #369
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) nope i love smacking your posts around
    2.) your right, the truth is never sorry
    3.) yep because facts defeat you no matter what you or anybody thinks
    4.) i dont deny any of that with in reason, your colorful language is meaningless to me but what really happened is people broke the law and discriminated and violated rights and that would be true for genders, races, religions, sexual orientations, physical/mental handicaps etc. YOU want to exclude "gays" but thats factually not the case. No confusion at all just dealing in FACTS again and not biased. SO yes i am about upholding the law for ALL OF US. nice try though
    5.) as i have explained before in those threads actually it is spot on with human rights, It is factually impossible to ban abortions or be total pro-choice without violating human rights. SO you fail again but please feel free to take the discussion to one of those threads. SO your point fails and is defeated by facts like the rest of your failed points. Unless of course you can explain to me how its possible to not violate human rights in the abortion debate. See the fact is intellect like that is too deep for your biased to go. This is fun. FACTS: no contradiction, no way not to violate human rights. you lose.
    6.) your acceptance is meaningless
    7.) no its just deflection in one way or another by you or the accusers. Not interesting at all.
    8.) me too, im glad you gave me these points to destory

    Hehe..

    Ok, Okay. I give I give.. You're so much smarter than I. Who was I to think that actual examples of your inconsistency and incoherence of logical principles would be honestly acknowledged? Silly Tim.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #370
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Hehe..

    Ok, Okay. I give I give.. You're so much smarter than I. Who was I to think that actual examples of your inconsistency and incoherence of logical principles would be honestly acknowledged? Silly Tim.

    Tim-
    translation: you have ZERO factual way to not violate human rights in the abortion debate and ZERO factual way to show any truthful "inconsistencies" in my posts . . . . . . . .thats what i thought

    you provide no actual examples, this is why you are running away and wont even try to support and defend them now. Yes Silly indeed

    happy trails
    Last edited by AGENT J; 09-23-13 at 09:10 PM.
    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 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2735363738 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
  •