• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
blah blah blah blah blah, trolling , trolling, meaningless point, meaningless point, off topic, off topic, doesn't matter doesn't matter, blah blah blah blah

LMAO!
you are funny and now its confirmed you must be trolling.
Its really this simple, please argue against the OP has im not playing your meaningless games, though its entertaining answering your every question while shooting holes in all of them becuase they are meaningless rhetoric, its lost its appeal has it serves nothing of substance to the debate and OP

If you need a point of reference please see OP :)

just like yesterday
the count stands atZERO has no one has provided a good reason per the criteria and OP :D
 
I dont see what the problem is..If a man wants to marry a man he should be allowed to with 100% support of the law..

Otherwise, cause I dont think the law is suppose to have a bias...Its suppose to make sure we are all are givin our rights..and the consitiution does not say anything about gays not being allowed to get married...Infact it says the oppisate..

Seperation of Religon ( aka opperation, no use in denying it people) and state...

If me ****ing my girl friend sideways while hanging upsidedown and listening to classical music does not matter, why would it matter if some guy ****s another guy...It makes no sense..

HEY YOU I UR NOT EQUAL TO ME! U R EATING ICE CREAM AND THATS EVIL!

thats the exact same thing thats happening here..

We might as well go back to saying Nig*er and oppresing black people :roll:

political-pictures-founding-fathers-church-state.jpg


I mean ffs I live in Israel, which under defenition is a JEWISH STATE and we allow gays to get married here! hell we let them march throu Jerusalem !
How can we respect Democratic values more than Americans do? thats unheard of :shock:
 
Last edited:
In my perfect world, the following would be the case:

No marriage as currently defined - replaced with exclusively legal/financial "civil unions" or the like.

The above mentioned legal joining is available to everyone.

Any tax breaks and the like are given if the legally joined persons meet standards set for such by the government offering them.
Note: As I understand it, the tax breaks were originally meant to promote stable families and homes, but that may be different now.

No restrictions except a requirement for mutual consent on religious/social/personal marriage between two or more persons - issues must be resolved between the individuals and/or religious entities involved, within the boundaries of law of course (as in, don't kill anyone, ect.).
 
In my perfect world, the following would be the case:

No marriage as currently defined - replaced with exclusively legal/financial "civil unions" or the like.

The above mentioned legal joining is available to everyone.

Any tax breaks and the like are given if the legally joined persons meet standards set for such by the government offering them.
Note: As I understand it, the tax breaks were originally meant to promote stable families and homes, but that may be different now.

No restrictions except a requirement for mutual consent on religious/social/personal marriage between two or more persons - issues must be resolved between the individuals and/or religious entities involved, within the boundaries of law of course (as in, don't kill anyone, ect.).

So in your perfect world you would choose to discriminate?
Or
are you saying from here on out there are no more "marriages" and you calll them all civil unions
 
So in your perfect world you would choose to discriminate?
Or
are you saying from here on out there are no more "marriages" and you calll them all civil unions
The latter, obviously...How the hell did you think I meant the former?

Or rather, as I suggested, marriages are exclusively a personal/religious matter, with no legal/financial/government involvement.

Edit: And as a side note, if the government chose to discriminate on some grounds in regards to granting tax breaks, that would be fine - depending on the grounds, of course.
 
Last edited:
The latter, obviously...How the hell did you think I meant the former?
because it didnt seem clear to me if you meant ALL or just meant "civil unions" and Marriage will be available, sorry thats why I asked though
figured that be better than assuming ;)

Or rather, as I suggested, marriages are exclusively a personal/religious matter, with no legal/financial/government involvement.

Edit: And as a side note, if the government chose to discriminate on some grounds in regards to granting tax breaks, that would be fine - depending on the grounds, of course.

Well I think your stance is off topicper the OP but since you seem to just bring it up rationally and unemotionally and arent a troll lets discuss it

Ok why do you suggest this course?
How would this possibly be easier?
What about all the people already married under the law, do we take away their title and now call then civil unions.
 
I am opposed to separating the concept of State-recognized "civil unions" from personal/religious "marriages". The State's recognition of and involvement in marriage stems from marriage being a vital social institution that must be protected, not only by churches and social pressures, but by the law. Marriage must be upheld as a social norm, regardless of whether homosexuals are allowed to participate in it or not.
 
I am opposed to separating the concept of State-recognized "civil unions" from personal/religious "marriages". The State's recognition of and involvement in marriage stems from marriage being a vital social institution that must be protected, not only by churches and social pressures, but by the law. Marriage must be upheld as a social norm, regardless of whether homosexuals are allowed to participate in it or not.

I tend to agree for multiple reasons
just easier to keep the same terminology and stop discriminating
the law is already written for marriage
changing the word will only incite MORE outrage IMO because it will obviously and legitimately be argued that it was changed just because of gays and is discrimination

but i wanted to ask him anyway to see his answers
 
Because it didn’t seem clear to me if you meant ALL or just meant "civil unions" and Marriage will be available, sorry that’s why I asked though
figured that be better than assuming ;)
Basically, my thought is to separate the legal and social/religious parts of marriage, to try and side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage issue.
Well I think your stance is off topic per the OP but since you seem to just bring it up rationally and unemotionally and aren’t a troll lets discuss it
It is directly related to the OP, in that it directly ties in with my stance on the poll question.
Ok why do you suggest this course?
As above, to side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage debate - hopefully a majority of people who are currently opposed because of such will stop being opposed, or at least start sounding even more unreasonable.
How would this possibly be easier?
As I see it, if you separate the legal/financial aspects of the current marriage setup from the religious/social aspects, you can then allow gay couples to acquire the legal aspects of marriage (which as I understand it, is one of the main reasons they want to be allowed to marry under the law) without upsetting those who are opposed to the religious/social aspect of same-sex marriage.
What about all the people already married under the law, do we take away their title and now call then civil unions.
Yes and no.
Yes we change the legal term and call it civil unions, no we don't take away their title.
As the matter of that title (as I assume you were talking about "marriage") would be a personal/religious matter if my thoughts became law, it wouldn’t be anyone's business except theirs.

I am opposed to separating the concept of State-recognized "civil unions" from personal/religious "marriages". The State's recognition of and involvement in marriage stems from marriage being a vital social institution that must be protected, not only by churches and social pressures, but by the law. Marriage must be upheld as a social norm, regardless of whether homosexuals are allowed to participate in it or not.
Interesting point.

I would say that the government could just as easily use a “civil union” to recognize and support those marriages they wish to preserve and uphold as social norms.

If, for example, they wish to promote child-rearing, they could easily put in place a requirement in their civil union code that limits or partially limits the people who can acquire it to only those that have/plan to have children.

If they want to promote a stable marriage, they can offer increased tax breaks to long-term marriages.

And so on.
 
I tend to agree for multiple reasons
just easier to keep the same terminology and stop discriminating
the law is already written for marriage
changing the word will only incite MORE outrage IMO because it will obviously and legitimately be argued that it was changed just because of gays and is discrimination

but i wanted to ask him anyway to see his answers

I still don't see how you repeatedly seem to think that changing a title = discrimination.

If everyone falls under the same title, how does it discriminate?
 
Basically, my thought is to separate the legal and social/religious parts of marriage, to try and side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage issue.

dont see how that would though since gays can already get married, just not leaglly. Marriage is a law thing not a religious. take the ;aw away and everybody and anybody is married EQUALLY still so people crying that it discraces the word would still have the same thing to cry about has they do now hence ONE of the reasons i never understood that argument.

It is directly related to the OP, in that it directly ties in with my stance on the poll question.
Ill give you indirectly at best hence removing marriage negates the question, so it cant be directly related

As above, to side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage debate - hopefully a majority of people who are currently opposed because of such will stop being opposed, or at least start sounding even more unreasonable.


you could be right but imo i think the exact opposite would happen has most would view the name change as to not allow gays to ever obtain that lawful title

As I see it, if you separate the legal/financial aspects of the current marriage setup from the religious/social aspects, you can then allow gay couples to acquire the legal aspects of marriage (which as I understand it, is one of the main reasons they want to be allowed to marry under the law) without upsetting those who are opposed to the religious/social aspect of same-sex marriage.

why cater to people who want to discriminate
and also you dont think this would also upset many gays has it would be obvious dodge or owing up to equal rights?
Yes and no.
Yes we change the legal term and call it civil unions, no we don't take away their title.
As the matter of that title (as I assume you were talking about "marriage") would be a personal/religious matter if my thoughts became law, it wouldn’t be anyone's business except theirs.

and thats exactly why i think it would cause more problems as it would be very transparent that it was changed only to not allow to have gays use the word marriage

[/QUOTE]
 
I still don't see how you repeatedly seem to think that changing a title = discrimination.

If everyone falls under the same title, how does it discriminate?

like i said it would be obviously donw to appease the group of discriminators as oppose to practicing equal rights

for example what if blacks(of any large part) werent allowed to be president(but there was no laws saying people coudnt vote for them) Obama wins and they were forced to do something about it. No some people cry the word president is sacred it can be associated with blacks, so instead of just using equal rights they cater to discriminators and change the word to something else it doesnt matter like CEA, Chief Executive of America

you telling me thats not discrimination on any level and people would have a legit grip?
I agree if the word marriage never exists then no discrimination but CHANGING it because now its going to allow blacks or gays etc can EASILY be argued has such

So lady you cant be CEO cause your a women but we will let you run the company and now were are going to call it group leader from now on because CEO is to good for you
 
Don’t see how that would though since gays can already get married, just not legally. Marriage is a law thing not a religious. Take the law away and everybody and anybody is married EQUALLY still so people crying that it disgraces the word would still have the same thing to cry about as they do now hence ONE of the reasons I never understood that argument.
Well, as you may have guessed from my previous posts, I am of the opinion that marriage has two parts, the legal and the religious.
Partly because of this, I don’t think government should be involved in ANY marriages (the whole separation of church and state bit).
Perhaps I’m nuts…
I’ll give you indirectly at best hence removing marriage negates the question, so it can’t be directly related
Excellent.
You could be right but IMO I think the exact opposite would happen as most would view the name change as to not allow gays to ever obtain that lawful title
Well, that would be the effect, but I’m actually supporting it more so that no one can obtain that lawful title.
Why cater to people who want to discriminate?
And also don’t you think this would upset many gays as it would be an obvious dodge from owing up to equal rights?
Trying to correct your English usage in sentences really messes with my responses…But here goes:
It’s not catering to people who want to discriminate, it’s eliminating any real connection between religious marriage and legal marriage by changing the title of legal marriage, thus (IMO) nixing the whole “The word “marriage” is a sacred religious thingy and forcing us to accept those disgusting gays using the word would violate separation of church and state” pseudo-argument”.
As to it being an obvious dodge, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as granting those rights completely.
And that’s exactly why I think it would cause more problems as it would be very transparent that it was changed only to not allow to have gays use the word marriage.
Actually, if they insist that the same word be used, they are no better than those who insist the word has religious meaning. It’s just a damn word, and you can use it all you want. Hell, you can even call the legal “civil union” a marriage if you want; no one will be able to say **** about it legally, which is the whole issue anyway.
Like I said it would be obviously done to appease the group of discriminators as opposed to practicing equal rights.
Not at all obvious, as my previous responses show (IMO, of course).

For example what if blacks (of any large part) weren’t allowed to be president (but there was no laws saying people couldn’t vote for them).
Obama wins and they were forced to do something about it.
“No!” some people cry the word president is sacred it can’t be associated with blacks, so instead of just using equal rights they cater to discriminators and change the word to something else it doesn’t matter like CEA, Chief Executive of America
Ok, what’s with the “(of any large part)” bit? Don’t get that.

But on to your point: Not a good example, as the presidency has no religious aspect, and thus (IMO) no even tentative reason to complain on religious grounds. And I consider the religious aspect slightly applicable to the gay marriage bit. But we’ve been over that, if memory serves.
You telling me that’s not discrimination on any level and people would not have a legit gripe?
I agree if the word marriage never exists then no discrimination but CHANGING it because now it’s going to allow blacks or gays etc can EASILY be argued has such.
Perhaps.

But if eliminating marriage from government control (except the legal equivalent of it, obviously) requires weathering that storm, so be it.

So lady you can’t be CEO because you’re a women but we will let you run the company and now we’re are going to call it group leader from now on because CEO is to good for you.
That would be discrimination. Again, a poor parallel IMO.


Basically, I see some validity in the argument that:

Granting the ability to enter into a legal contract entitled “marriage” would in effect force people who disagree with that interpretation of the word to accept it against their religious views. Thus, IMO, violating the whole separation of church and state bit.

But I don’t think you agree, as we’ve been over that.

Awhile ago, too.

Bla.
 
Well, as you may have guessed from my previous posts, I am of the opinion that marriage has two parts, the legal and the religious.
Partly because of this, I don’t think government should be involved in ANY marriages (the whole separation of church and state bit).
Perhaps I’m nuts….
i dont think your nuts has i like many point you make in posts in general but in this case you are just wrong because marriage can in fact just have one part
Excellent.
thought you'd like that

Well, that would be the effect, but I’m actually supporting it more so that no one can obtain that lawful title.
i get that but like i said i think that adds to the problem not solves it.
Trying to correct your English usage in sentences really messes with my responses…But here goes:
its really not that bad, i could try to slow down but on a message board its hard to for me, im also usually multitasking, but as you pointed out, im doing it poorly i guess ;)

It’s not catering to people who want to discriminate, it’s eliminating any real connection between religious marriage and legal marriage by changing the title of legal marriage, thus (IMO) nixing the whole “The word “marriage” is a sacred religious thingy and forcing us to accept those disgusting gays using the word would violate separation of church and state” pseudo-argument”.
As to it being an obvious dodge, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as granting those rights completely.
and you think that people will buy this?
Im not knocking your logic at its foundation Im asking you to think about it in the reality of america. Even now in politics blue and red are the devil to each other and i think this will not work.

I see it as granting those rights completely.actually, if they insist that the same word be used, they are no better than those who insist the word has religious meaning. It’s just a damn word, and you can use it all you want. Hell, you can even call the legal “civil union” a marriage if you want; no one will be able to say **** about it legally, which is the whole issue anyway.
they want the word cause that is the current legal standard so i dont think it make them equal to the ones that want them to not use it. In fact I find them hypocritical because the word in the non legal sense is ALREADY used for gays has no one has controlled over the word being used

Not at all obvious, as my previous responses show (IMO, of course).
yes it is just opinion of course has is mine but i seriously doubt the masses would buy it

Ok, what’s with the “(of any large part)” bit? Don’t get that.
did that because didnt want some saying "technically we all might be black" of that obama isnt full black etc.
you know somebody might have lol

But on to your point: Not a good example, as the presidency has no religious aspect, and thus (IMO) no even tentative reason to complain on religious grounds. And I consider the religious aspect slightly applicable to the gay marriage bit. But we’ve been over that, if memory serves.
well like you siad I totally disagree because religion plays no rule nor should it when it comes to discrimination which is the issue
ALSO id have to disagree because many people used religion to keep women and minorities down, the reasons didnt apply then and should now.
So actually my example could very well be based on religion.

Perhaps
But if eliminating marriage from government control (except the legal equivalent of it, obviously) requires weathering that storm, so be it..
so whether the discrimination storm instead of doinf somthing that gets rid of the storm all together, thats why i dont think that makes sense


That would be discrimination. Again, a poor parallel IMO.
very equal since that could be based on religion also BUT again its not about religion its about discrimination whcih you agree that would be sorry but IMO thats VERY hypocritical of you on this issue, VERY


Basically, I see some validity in the argument that:

Granting the ability to enter into a legal contract entitled “marriage” would in effect force people who disagree with that interpretation of the word to accept it against their religious views. Thus, IMO, violating the whole separation of church and state bit.

But I don’t think you agree, as we’ve been over that.

Awhile ago, too.

Bla.

I dont agree as there is huge evidence that shows this is NOT the case at all and all validity can be shot down.
if it was that simple many things already violate that, non legal seen marriage which is already going on. so by default this argument is hugely hypocritical too

example

religion marriage alone has no legal rights
marriage is not owned by religion
the argument that the word is sacred is invalid for many reasons, a couple being right now gays can get married just not legally recognized. Two the state already marries people WITHOUT religion. So is that marriage being forced on you?

also if you think they are "separate" then legal marriage has nothing to do with religion which is true, but you want it too. You want the legal to ONLY reflect religion, that would already go against what you are saying hence the hypocrisy.
 
I don’t think your nuts has I like many point you make in posts in general but in this case you are just wrong because marriage can in fact just have one part.
I think we’ve been over this already.

Not that I recall the details.

I disagree with you, and you disagree with me.
Each seems unable to convince the other.
So…Meh.
I get that but like I said I think that adds to the problem not solves it.
How so?
And you think that people will buy this?
Hey, I prefaced this whole bit with “in my perfect world”.

Of course they will, it’s my world. ;)
I’m not knocking your logic at its foundation I’m asking you to think about it in the reality of America. Even now in politics blue and red are the devil to each other and I think this will not work.
Well, yeah, this topic is far too useful for an actual solution to be reached any time soon.
Assholes.
They want the word cause that is the current legal standard so I don’t think it make them equal to the ones that want them to not use it. In fact I find them hypocritical because the word in the non legal sense is ALREADY used for gays as no one has control over the word being used
And I’m saying take the legal usage away from everyone, and obviously make no laws restricting the non-legal usage…As that would be unconstitutional, methinks.
Yes it is just opinion of course has is mine but I seriously doubt the masses would buy it
Well, it’s my perfect world, so I say they will. :mrgreen:
Did that because didn’t want some saying "technically we all might be black" of that Obama isn’t full black etc.
You know somebody might have lol
Uhh…Ok, whatever.
Well like you said I totally disagree because religion plays no rule nor should it when it comes to discrimination which is the issue
ALSO id have to disagree because many people used religion to keep women and minorities down, the reasons didn’t apply then and should now.
So actually my example could very well be based on religion.
In a secular sense, discrimination based on reasons other than ability I disagree with and think should be eliminated (or as close as possible to such).

In the religious sense, trying to eliminate discrimination internal to a religion is up to the religion, and no one else (albeit lessening of membership may nudge them in the right direction).

so whether the discrimination storm instead of doing something that gets rid of the storm all together, that’s why I don’t think that makes sense
Nothing will get rid of discrimination altogether, and I have no idea what you think will.

Very equal since that could be based on religion also BUT again it’s not about religion it’s about discrimination which you agree that would be sorry but IMO that’s VERY hypocritical of you on this issue, VERY
It’s the religious aspect we seem to disagree on here – I see it as existing, you do not.

I don’t agree as there is huge evidence that shows this is NOT the case at all and all validity can be shot down.
If it was that simple many things already violate that, non legal seen marriage which is already going on. So by default this argument is hugely hypocritical too

Example

Religious marriage alone has no legal rights
Marriage is not owned by religion
The argument that the word is sacred is invalid for many reasons, a couple being right now gays can get married just not legally recognized. Two the state already marries people WITHOUT religion. So is that marriage being forced on you?

Also if you think they are "separate" then legal marriage has nothing to do with religion which is true, but you want it too. You want the legal to ONLY reflect religion, that would already go against what you are saying hence the hypocrisy.
We’ve rehashed this a couple times already…

I see an argument in it that you do not accept, and thus our disagreement.

It’ll have to wait till Monday, as the weekend approaches and I will be on hiatus from the forum during it.
 
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Other than that it is a union.
 
I think we’ve been over this already.

Not that I recall the details.

I disagree with you, and you disagree with me.
Each seems unable to convince the other.
So…Meh.
well this isnt about convincing or disagreeing it a simple fact

because theres no reason to think that this will make the people being discriminated against just now be quite i think it will create the opposite effect like my women ceo and black president example.

it wont be technically getting rid of the discrimination buy side stepping it and i dont think people will buy it, i could be wrong though
Hey, I prefaced this whole bit with “in my perfect world”.

Of course they will, it’s my world. ;)
lol fair enough i guess

Well, yeah, this topic is far too useful for an actual solution to be reached any time soon.
Assholes.
agreed this is why i want to just make it equal forget the assholes

And I’m saying take the legal usage away from everyone, and obviously make no laws restricting the non-legal usage…As that would be unconstitutional, methinks.
Well, it’s my perfect world, so I say they will. :mrgreen:
Uhh…Ok, whatever.
In a secular sense, discrimination based on reasons other than ability I disagree with and think should be eliminated (or as close as possible to such).

In the religious sense, trying to eliminate discrimination internal to a religion is up to the religion, and no one else (albeit lessening of membership may nudge them in the right direction)..

well since religion wouldnt be effected in reality and religion can still discriminate this point is totally moot

Nothing will get rid of discrimination altogether, and I have no idea what you think will..
i agree but that doesnt mean we should chip away at it every chance we get this is america
rather get rid of it than empower it or let them win one

It’s the religious aspect we seem to disagree on here – I see it as existing, you do not.
thats because it doesnt based on any existing logic over discrimination

IWe’ve rehashed this a couple times already…

I see an argument in it that you do not accept, and thus our disagreement.

It’ll have to wait till Monday, as the weekend approaches and I will be on hiatus from the forum during it.

fair enough but weve rehashed it because IMO your argument makes a circle and is inconsistent and hypocritical per you explanation but maybe im missing something

have a good weekend
 
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Other than that it is a union.

Except in all the places where it isn't.

Your marriage definition is being changed all over the world and in the United States as well. More and more states are allowing it, and it won't be that long before they all do. Might as well get used to it. It's going to happen, I guarantee it.
 
"Get married to the person you love" comes to mind.

I love my mom. I'm not allowed to marry her. I love my dad, I;m not allowed to marry him. I love my brother and sister, and I'm not allowed to marry either of them. I have no more interest in marrying a girl right now than a gay man does.

Clearly your response is inaccurate.
 
Also join the army comes to mind? =]

That answer is much closer to accurate, though technically gays can join the army. It would be more accurate to say that I can speak freely about my sexual conquests while in the army.
 
Glad I could amuse.

you are funny and now its confirmed you must be trolling. blah blah blah etc...

Your lack of rebuttal is telling.

It is really pretty simple. The licensing of marriage is an innately discriminatory practice that gives some privilege over others as a reward for their sexual pairing. Allowing anyone, blacks, gays, whites, blondes, or other to participate in such a discriminatory process only spreads the discrimination around like a kid spreading his vegetables around on his plate. The vegetables are still there no matter how you arrange them.

The only real solution is to abolish the licensing of marriage altogether. If, as I heard so many people say, its none of the governments business if two consenting adults want to get married, then it should be NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S business, and they should stay out of it altogether.

Allowing the government to license marriage is an admission that it IS the governments business, and as such the arbitrary criteria for determining who can marry who is completely at the discretion of the slimeball politicians pandering to their respective bases.

It should be no one's business but the people getting married.
 
Glad I could amuse.



Your lack of rebuttal is telling.

It is really pretty simple. The licensing of marriage is an innately discriminatory practice that gives some privilege over others as a reward for their sexual pairing. Allowing anyone, blacks, gays, whites, blondes, or other to participate in such a discriminatory process only spreads the discrimination around like a kid spreading his vegetables around on his plate. The vegetables are still there no matter how you arrange them.

The only real solution is to abolish the licensing of marriage altogether. If, as I heard so many people say, its none of the governments business if two consenting adults want to get married, then it should be NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S business, and they should stay out of it altogether.

Allowing the government to license marriage is an admission that it IS the governments business, and as such the arbitrary criteria for determining who can marry who is completely at the discretion of the slimeball politicians pandering to their respective bases.

It should be no one's business but the people getting married.

telling? i agree
nothing to reply to since you offered nothing of substance

you want to get rid of marriage fine thats a different topic and still does nothing to the OP and criteria, nor change that its discrimination thanks :)
 
I love my mom. I'm not allowed to marry her. I love my dad, I;m not allowed to marry him. I love my brother and sister, and I'm not allowed to marry either of them. I have no more interest in marrying a girl right now than a gay man does.

Clearly your response is inaccurate.

actually his response is 100% accurate as you didnt contest it one bit you only gave other examples per you opinion LOL

if this was still a time when women and minorites couldnt vote and he said "minorities cant vote its discrimination" and you reply "women cant vote either so no its not" that doesnt change the fact that it is still discrimination that minorites cant vote
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom