• 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!

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?


  • Total voters
    99
LMAO you just made a complete fool of yourself
I know i asked you before but you didnt answer are you from america?
1, i never said i believe ANY of that, so that is lie number one LMAO
What a fail, you said it right here
4.) DO "i" think, no i do not think that but im ok if people want to fight for that, it simply doesnt make sense because it would be something NEW for start to finish, not granting equal rights like now, you would be inventing something totally new and something totally different and putting it under the same laws and titles which is stupid and a waste of government money to me BUT again if people want to fight for that i would never stop them :shrug:
This is where it all comes crumbling down for you man... I caught you.



Even if you retract your statement and everything is cool... than why are you advocating just for gay rights of marriage and not rights of anyone to participate in the marriage contract?
 
2.) do you understand what equal rights are?

NOBODY has those rights you are talking about so that would not be an EQUAL rights issues LMAO
2) yes, I do

Nobody? what are you talking about... everyone with a marriage contract has the rights I'm talking about.

And no, its not like that. It is my assertion that people that are just advocating for gays to be included in the marriage contract are disingenuous people they still exclude consenting adults from it. And where I tie this into not using the term marriage, it's because marriage doesn't accurately describe this government contract, civil union better describes it.
 
What a fail, you said it right here This is where it all comes crumbling down for you man... I caught you.



Even if you retract your statement and everything is cool... than why are you advocating just for gay rights of marriage and not rights of anyone to participate in the marriage contract?

i answered you question followed but what, please bold what it says right afterwards "IM ok if people want to fight for that" LMAO hmmm wonder what that means? means i BELIEVE they can fight for that if they want and im ok with it, oooooops like i said YOU FAIL :)

you caught nothing you dont understand english, americam, marriage, or equal rights LOL

THANK YOU for proving my points and posting that because it supports ME, not you lol

weird you didnt qoute my whole post i wonder why?

here ill post the rest of it now. BTW it also answers you question. LOL

"NOBODY has those rights you are talking about so that would not be an EQUAL rights issues LMAO

it would be like i said something new and is MEANINGLESS to gay equal rights


100% FAIL

so again please stop lying "

I fight for gay rights because thats EQUAL rights

fighting for a grandmother to marry her grandson would be NEW rights LOL

this is why you will always fail with this broken logic.
 
2) yes, I do

Nobody? what are you talking about... everyone with a marriage contract has the rights I'm talking about.

And no, its not like that. It is my assertion that people that are just advocating for gays to be included in the marriage contract are disingenuous people they still exclude consenting adults from it. And where I tie this into not using the term marriage, it's because marriage doesn't accurately describe this government contract, civil union better describes it.

WRONG, no grandmother has the right to marry a grandson
NONE

your assertion is 100% wrong and supported by zero facts or logic because you just proved you have no understanding of EQUAL rights

marriage is 100% accurate based on its definition :shrug:

please proceed posting like this though because everytime you do it futher proves you dont understand the term equal rights

again how old are you and where are you from.

by your broken logic if i fight to own a nuclear weapon (which no civilian can) im fight for equal rights, that is simply not true. sorry you dont understand these facts
 
i answered you question followed but what, please bold what it says right afterwards "IM ok if people want to fight for that" LMAO hmmm wonder what that means? means i BELIEVE they can fight for that if they want and im ok with it, oooooops like i said YOU FAIL :)

you caught nothing you dont understand english, americam, marriage, or equal rights LOL

THANK YOU for proving my points and posting that because it supports ME, not you lol

weird you didnt qoute my whole post i wonder why?

here ill post the rest of it now. BTW it also answers you question. LOL
I was addressing what YOU thought should be the law... not what other people might think and what you think about those people. And I am American... I'm not sure what that has anything to do with anything.

You said you never said any of that, and I proved you wrong.
 
WRONG, no grandmother has the right to marry a grandson
NONE

your assertion is 100% wrong and supported by zero facts or logic because you just proved you have no understanding of EQUAL rights

marriage is 100% accurate based on its definition :shrug:

please proceed posting like this though because everytime you do it futher proves you dont understand the term equal rights

again how old are you and where are you from.

by your broken logic if i fight to own a nuclear weapon (which no civilian can) im fight for equal rights, that is simply not true. sorry you dont understand these facts

Good, you are actually saying something now for a change.

How does a gay person have anymore right to marry another gay person than a grandmother marring her adult grandson? please tell me.

I can tell you are using this example for the shock value... pitiful indeed, but Ill play along...
 
1.)I was addressing what YOU thought should be the law... not what other people might think and what you think about those people. 2.)And I am American... I'm not sure what that has anything to do with anything.

3.)You said you never said any of that, and I proved you wrong.

1.)no you are not :shrug:
2.) i asked because it hard to believe you are with such a little understanding of equal rights / marriage
3.) no you didnt because i never did say any of that LMAO

try again :)
 
WRONG, no grandmother has the right to marry a grandson
NONE

your assertion is 100% wrong and supported by zero facts or logic because you just proved you have no understanding of EQUAL rights

marriage is 100% accurate based on its definition :shrug:

please proceed posting like this though because everytime you do it futher proves you dont understand the term equal rights

again how old are you and where are you from.

by your broken logic if i fight to own a nuclear weapon (which no civilian can) im fight for equal rights, that is simply not true. sorry you dont understand these facts

And I am 22... and I don't feel comfortable telling you exactly where I am from lol... but I am a physics student at a University.
 
1.)Good, you are actually saying something now for a change.

2.)How does a gay person have anymore right to marry another gay person than a grandmother marring her adult grandson? please tell me.

3.)can tell you are using this example for the shock value... pitiful indeed, but Ill play along...

1.) another meaningless deflection and lie
2.) easy because one is equal rights and one is not :shrug:
3.) i used this example because its factual and shows you have no understanding of equal rights

to fight for EQUAL rights others must have a right you are being denied that is not the case with your examples, sorry you dont understand this fact
 
And I am 22... and I don't feel comfortable telling you exactly where I am from lol... but I am a physics student at a University.

dont want to know exactly where you are from, just dont believe you are american

now if you will address my example that will help you learn what equal rights are
 
1.)no you are not :shrug:
2.) i asked because it hard to believe you are with such a little understanding of equal rights / marriage
3.) no you didnt because i never did say any of that LMAO

try again :)

I have it in your own words
4.) DO "i" think, no i do not think that but im ok if people want to fight for that, it simply doesnt make sense because it would be something NEW for start to finish, not granting equal rights like now, you would be inventing something totally new and something totally different and putting it under the same laws and titles which is stupid and a waste of government money to me BUT again if people want to fight for that i would never stop them :shrug:
You said NO I DO NOT THINK THAT... how can it be any more obvious than that?

We can resolve this right now than...

I ask again, do YOU think that the marriage contract should include all consenting adults?

please explain the difference between New rights and equal rights... because I am pretty sure they are both new and equal.... and If they arn't which one is not an equal right and which one is not a new right?
 
I have it in your own words

1.)You said NO I DO NOT THINK THAT... how can it be any more obvious than that?

We can resolve this right now than...

2.)I ask again, do YOU think that the marriage contract should include all consenting adults?

3.)please explain the difference between New rights and equal rights... because I am pretty sure they are both new and equal.... and If they arn't which one is not an equal right and which one is not a new right?

1.) because you dont understand English and you ignore the rest of my sentences and what you implied i said is NOTHING like what i actually said lol
wow, you simply dont get things do you?

2.) no i dont think that because that would be something knew but im fine with people fighting for that if thats what they want. This sentence as it is defined using ENGLISH is nothing close to saying "Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members. Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child. Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin."

they are not alike at all

3.) sure no problem since you are obviously servery uneducated about this subject.

question, can any grandmother merry her grandson in america? answer NO, there for to fight for that right would be fighting for a new right not equal.
I have no clue why this basic common sense is so hard for you to comprehend.

fighting for siblings to marry would be a NEW right because NO siblings can marry so you wouldnt be making siblings EQUAL to anything.
 
3.) sure no problem since you are obviously servery uneducated about this subject.

question, can any grandmother merry her grandson in america? answer NO, there for to fight for that right would be fighting for a new right not equal.
I have no clue why this basic common sense is so hard for you to comprehend.

fighting for siblings to marry would be a NEW right because NO siblings can marry so you wouldnt be making siblings EQUAL to anything.
I am afraid you just don't get it.

question, (this is in the context when gay marriage was banned) can any gay man marry any other gay man in america? answer NO, therefor to fight for that right would be fighting for a new right not equal.

same argument? no?

fighting for gays to marry would be a NEW right because NO gays can marry so you wouldn't be making gays EQUAL to anything. (this is in the context when gay marriage was banned)

can you seriously not see the flaws in your argument?
 
2.) no i dont think that because that would be something knew but im fine with people fighting for that if thats what they want. This sentence as it is defined using ENGLISH is nothing close to saying "Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members. Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child. Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin."
Yes, it DOES. Just because you think people can fight for it doesn't change what YOU think the laws should be.

gay marriage was something NEW.
 
1.)I am afraid you just don't get it.

2.)question, (this is in the context when gay marriage was banned) can any gay man marry any other gay man in america? answer NO, therefor to fight for that right would be fighting for a new right not equal.

same argument? no?

fighting for gays to marry would be a NEW right because NO gays can marry so you wouldn't be making gays EQUAL to anything. (this is in the context when gay marriage was banned)

can you seriously not see the flaws in your argument?

1.) i get it just fine, its your my friend and that fact has been proven muiltiple times now.
2.) wrong because a MAN can marry a WOMAN but a WOMAN cant marry a WOMAN that is the equal rights that are being fought for LMAO

its like you are brand new to america and equal rights and gay rights

if a MAN can be a fire chief and a WOMAN wants to be a fire chief thats fighting for EQUAL rights because some one can be it and they cant.

there are no flaws in the EQUAL RIGHTS argument which has NOTHING to do with "me" its the GAY RIGHTS argument that has been around for years.

You are the one not able to see facts

alets use more examples of how broken your logic is, apply it to minority and womans rights and see how that works out

NO woman could vote so does that mean women fight to vote were not fighting for equal rights????? of course not because they were fighting for equal rights because men could vote

see, sorry fats, hostory and logic simply disagree with you, you are simply wrong and do not understand EQUAL rights, sorry dude
 
Yes, it DOES. Just because you think people can fight for it doesn't change what YOU think the laws should be.

gay marriage was something NEW.

no it doesnt not LMAO please stop lying and making stuff up LOL
and gay marriage would be EQUAL rights as already proven multiple times
 
1.) i get it just fine, its your my friend and that fact has been proven muiltiple times now.
2.) wrong because a MAN can marry a WOMAN but a WOMAN cant marry a WOMAN that is the equal rights that are being fought for LMAO

its like you are brand new to america and equal rights and gay rights

if a MAN can be a fire chief and a WOMAN wants to be a fire chief thats fighting for EQUAL rights because some one can be it and they cant.

there are no flaws in the EQUAL RIGHTS argument which has NOTHING to do with "me" its the GAY RIGHTS argument that has been around for years.

You are the one not able to see facts

alets use more examples of how broken your logic is, apply it to minority and womans rights and see how that works out

NO woman could vote so does that mean women fight to vote were not fighting for equal rights????? of course not because they were fighting for equal rights because men could vote

see, sorry fats, hostory and logic simply disagree with you, you are simply wrong and do not understand EQUAL rights, sorry dude

You cloud your mind with cultural norms...

for argument in #2

2) wrong because a FAMILY MEMBER can marry a NON-FAMILY MEMBER but a FAMILY MEMBER can't marry a FAMILY MEMBER that is the equal rights that are being fought for LMAO
wrong because a ONE-MAN can marry ONE-MAN but TWO-MAN can't marry ONE-MAN that is the equal right that are being fought for LMAO

until you can construct an an actual argument that is sound and valid, you make no case... You are educated enough to know what a sound and valid argument is right?
 
1.)You cloud your mind with cultural norms...

for argument in #2

2) wrong because a FAMILY MEMBER can marry a NON-FAMILY MEMBER but a FAMILY MEMBER can't marry a FAMILY MEMBER that is the equal rights that are being fought for LMAO
wrong because a ONE-MAN can marry ONE-MAN but TWO-MAN can't marry ONE-MAN that is the equal right that are being fought for LMAO

until you can construct an an actual argument that is sound and valid, you make no case... You are educated enough to know what a sound and valid argument is right?

1.) nope just a deflection you keep trying to use that fails and doesnt stick
2.) no you are wrong because NO FAMILY MEMBERS CAN MERRY A FAMILY MEMBER LMAO

how this basic common sense escapes you is exactly why i dont believe you are an american or of age, its hilarious how foolish you make yourself look when you say the things you do.

also like i said its not MY argument its FACTS and HISTORY'S argument and the same one that woman and minorities already made for their equal rights LMAO

nothing needs "constructed" because hostroy and facts already did that, let me know when you have anything factually that changes anything, ill be waiting :)
 
NO woman could vote so does that mean women fight to vote were not fighting for equal rights????? of course not because they were fighting for equal rights because men could vote
hmmm, are they excluding anyone to vote? Can family members, gay lovers, and polygamist vote? I think they can... so this example does not relate.

voting is a privileged only give by people who are over the age of 18, so I guess you can make an argument that it discriminates on the basis on age. But this is something they admit to, they admit to discriminating on the basis of age for voting, crime history, and citizenship for specific reasons. You are not providing reasons why any should be excluded from the marriage contract, and I think I could counter any reason, because in my opinion there are no good reasons to exclude any two consenting adults from the marriage contract.
 
1.) nope just a deflection you keep trying to use that fails and doesnt stick
2.) no you are wrong because NO FAMILY MEMBERS CAN MERRY A FAMILY MEMBER LMAO

how this basic common sense escapes you is exactly why i dont believe you are an american or of age, its hilarious how foolish you make yourself look when you say the things you do.

also like i said its not MY argument its FACTS and HISTORY'S argument and the same one that woman and minorities already made for their equal rights LMAO

nothing needs "constructed" because hostroy and facts already did that, let me know when you have anything factually that changes anything, ill be waiting :)

When Homosexual marriage was banned neither could they, and again you are focusing on the family member thing for shock value... I love it...

It is you that are making a fool of themselves, because you do not seem to know how to construct a formal argument. To your benefit though, I think it may be impossible to construct one in your favor, because you are wrong :2razz:

I have to go, but I will continue this later...
 
Last edited:
1.)When Homosexual marriage was banned neither could they.

It is you that are making a fool of themselves, because you do not seem to know how to construct a formal argument. To your benefit though, I think it may be impossible to construct one in your favor, because you are wrong :2razz:

1.) what?
2.) of course YOU think that but again facts and hostory support me while you have ZERO support :shrug:

sorry again facts are right and you are wrong and that has been proven many times now, you denying it doesnt change anything

by your logic blacks and women never fought for equal rights LMAO, talk about making a fool of yourself, no thanks ill stick with facts.

let me know when you have some.
 
1.)hmmm, are they excluding anyone to vote? Can family members, gay lovers, and polygamist vote? I think they can... so this example does not relate.

voting is a privileged only give by people who are over the age of 18, so I guess you can make an argument that it discriminates on the basis on age. But this is something they admit to, they admit to discriminating on the basis of age for voting, crime history, and citizenship for specific reasons. You are not providing reasons why any should be excluded from the marriage contract, and I think I could counter any reason, because in my opinion there are no good reasons to exclude any two consenting adults from the marriage contract.

wow you cant be this silly? once AGAIN you just proved you have no understanding of equal rights or americas history, there is no way you are of age and or from america
 
1.) what?
2.) of course YOU think that but again facts and hostory support me while you have ZERO support :shrug:

sorry again facts are right and you are wrong and that has been proven many times now, you denying it doesnt change anything

by your logic blacks and women never fought for equal rights LMAO, talk about making a fool of yourself, no thanks ill stick with facts.

let me know when you have some.
what do you mean "what?"
you said,"NO FAMILY MEMBERS CAN MERRY A FAMILY MEMBER "
neither could gay people

your argument fails, once again.

You clearly have no understand of what we are talking about about...
blacks fought for equal rights for everyone not just themselves. If they were just fighting for themselves and not every single person (except obviously the people who were not being discriminated), then they were being discriminatory.
Your examples so how truly oblivious you are...

I came back for one more
 
1.)what do you mean "what?"
you said,"NO FAMILY MEMBERS CAN MERRY A FAMILY MEMBER "
neither could gay people

your argument fails, once again.

You clearly have no understand of what we are talking about about...
2.)blacks fought for equal rights for everyone not just themselves. If they were just fighting for themselves and not every single person (except obviously the people who were not being discriminated), then they were being discriminatory.
Your examples so how truly oblivious you are...

I came back for one more

1.) WOW

you have to be joking at this point

can a man merry a woman? YES
can A woman merry a women? no
thats what the EQUAL rights are about

NO family member can marry family members LOL

the argument doesnt fail at all you simply arent educated enough on the subject to understand it, or history or america, this fact has been proved many times. You are definitely a kid.
blacks did NOT fight for everyone on the EQUAL rights moments MINORITIES fought for all minorities not every one,WOW

this is one of the funniest things i have ever read here.

like i said
i have facts and history what have you provide besides "nu-huh" LMAO
 
Back
Top Bottom