• 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 rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va [W: 86,235]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Nonsense. The Prop 8 brief can be found here: Prop 8 Proponents

Plenty of legitimate reasons not to allow SSM. Legitimacy is a matter of opinion, and yours is duly noted.

Tim-

No legitimate reasons. Those "Proponents" were rightly told so during the trials they got. Their bull doesn't hold legal water.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

It's fun at first but once he starts trolling and just making up ideas that suit his argument - it can just go too far.

Besides, I didn't block him - he blocked himself..... I told him if he didn't stop talking **** he was going to be "ignored" of course I made good.

IMO, it's quite refreshing...

destroying your posts with facts is not trolling and not one honest respected poster here buys that. facts defeat your posts, you couldnt back up your failed posts so you run away from it.
see the best part is, trying to pretend your posts dont get destroyed by facts doesn't change the fact they do. Ignore a way it only further exposes you and provided more entertainment for me.

anything else on topic you want to discuss, tell us the lies that theres no such thing as gay marriage again? that's my favorite
 
Last edited:
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Can you list examples of how gays don't have equal protection???

I suppose every example you have is either NOT a law or blatantly violates others freedoms...

See how that works?

see all the court cases
tell us when a gay couple marries in NH and moves or travels are they treated equally as a straight couple? given the same protections?
factually the answer is 100% no
wow that was easy

if you disagree id love for you to prove otherwise
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.) yep i find you amusing too, destroying your failed posts and lies with facts is always fun.
2.) wow 100% false. just two posts in and you are already caught posting a lie.
I never said that at all, please go back and read my whole statement and its content
what happened was somebody pointing out a risk of HIV was a reason to worry about gay marriage or not allow it, which is meaningless to equal rights and marriage. i pointed out how promiscuous anal sex is a high risk activity period, the people dont really matter its high risk for anybody. This was important because it should how stupid of a concern it was for this topic unless of course one wants to regulate all sex. it exposed how worrying about JUST gay sex was severely uneducated when all promiscuous unprotected sex has high risk.
yep you lose again tim, see this is what happens very often to you.
people factually write one thing.
Took the bait just like I KNEW you would. This goes to that predictability thing I keep referring too about you. Do you think I would make such a claim without the cold hard facts to back me up? Truth is that no Sir, it isn't just promiscuity that causes the spread of HIV. All things being equal, which in language comprehension a 4 year old would understand, means that all samples are assumed the same degree of latitude statistically, we see that 75% of all cases of HIV in the USA is by men having sex with men, the other 28% or so is by IDU, and the remaining is by heterosexuals that as a matter of FACT also fall into risky categories of which, being a bisexual, or having sex with someone that is, is an indicator. The cold hard truth is that at least in the USA and the West, a heterosexual who does not have sex with a bisexual or homosexual, or use intravenous drugs has a statistically zero chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime. Whereas a homosexual man has a 25% chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime, and a 50% chance before they reach the age of 30. Now why do you suppose that is? It is because gay men, especially young gay men between the ages of 15 to 24 simply do NOT practice safe sex. In many surveys done on the topic, they, by a huge margin, find safe sex to be atypical of the homosexual lifestyle. Barebacking and bug chasing, and drug mixing are behaviors that are embraced by the young homosexual, not avoided. They as a group or population demographic do NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT practice safe sex period! Also, to wet your whistle with some more unpopular facts, the increase in HIV over the past several years in spite of a dramatic effort to slow the spread, is among the homosexual youth, and black men are the highest growth category. Moreover, take into account that statistically heterosexuals test themselves for HIV by a whopping 80% compared to homosexuals who are way down with 22% even bothering to test themselves after a sexual encounter. So Sir, although it might sound all light and puffy the way you present and frame your argument, your argument fails in that, your premise is completely wrong. Homosexuality, despite all the inherent risks is not in and of itself a gay disease, however, homosexual culture is most certainly what is allowing it to stick around.

then you assume and make up stuff in your head that you think was said but in reality it never was.
hell, go back and quote me and the the posts before it to further own yourself and prove yourself wrong
thanks again buddy for totally destroying your own posts for me, you are O and lifetime against facts, please keep trying though you never fail on cracking me up with your dishonesty and failed posts.
at least this time you tried to stay on topic but once again fact destroy your failed post, good job!
anything else on topic youd like to discuss . . honestly without fantasy?

Ok, well have it your way unicorn chaser.. I'll stick to the facts.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, this link shows you how incredibly wrong you are about the facts!
CDC: HIV rates high among young gay men, many unaware they're infected - CBS News
By the way, this is just one link, there are many that confirm, and expand on the causes and the spread of HIV in the Western world if you're truly interested in attacking the topic from an unbiased point of view.

Tim-
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

No legitimate reasons. Those "Proponents" were rightly told so during the trials they got. Their bull doesn't hold legal water.

By a gay judge, and then upheld not on the merits, but on procedure.

Tim-
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Took the bait just like I KNEW you would. This goes to that predictability thing I keep referring too about you. Do you think I would make such a claim without the cold hard facts to back me up? Truth is that no Sir, it isn't just promiscuity that causes the spread of HIV. All things being equal, which in language comprehension a 4 year old would understand, means that all samples are assumed the same degree of latitude statistically, we see that 75% of all cases of HIV in the USA is by men having sex with men, the other 28% or so is by IDU, and the remaining is by heterosexuals that as a matter of FACT also fall into risky categories of which, being a bisexual, or having sex with someone that is, is an indicator. The cold hard truth is that at least in the USA and the West, a heterosexual who does not have sex with a bisexual or homosexual, or use intravenous drugs has a statistically zero chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime. Whereas a homosexual man has a 25% chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime, and a 50% chance before they reach the age of 30. Now why do you suppose that is? It is because gay men, especially young gay men between the ages of 15 to 24 simply do NOT practice safe sex. In many surveys done on the topic, they, by a huge margin, find safe sex to be atypical of the homosexual lifestyle. Barebacking and bug chasing, and drug mixing are behaviors that are embraced by the young homosexual, not avoided. They as a group or population demographic do NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT practice safe sex period! Also, to wet your whistle with some more unpopular facts, the increase in HIV over the past several years in spite of a dramatic effort to slow the spread, is among the homosexual youth, and black men are the highest growth category. Moreover, take into account that statistically heterosexuals test themselves for HIV by a whopping 80% compared to homosexuals who are way down with 22% even bothering to test themselves after a sexual encounter. So Sir, although it might sound all light and puffy the way you present and frame your argument, your argument fails in that, your premise is completely wrong. Homosexuality, despite all the inherent risks is not in and of itself a gay disease, however, homosexual culture is most certainly what is allowing it to stick around.



Ok, well have it your way unicorn chaser.. I'll stick to the facts.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, this link shows you how incredibly wrong you are about the facts!
CDC: HIV rates high among young gay men, many unaware they're infected - CBS News
By the way, this is just one link, there are many that confirm, and expand on the causes and the spread of HIV in the Western world if you're truly interested in attacking the topic from an unbiased point of view.

Tim-


weird i dont see a quote of me saying what you lied about and CLAIMED i said
Translation, you lied about what i said and now you are hoping i get caught up in your deflection.

thanks for playing tim, your post loses as usual
thanks again buddy for totally destroying your own posts for me, your posts are O and lifetime against facts, please keep trying though you never fail on cracking me up with your dishonesty and failed posts. You posted ZERO facts that change anything of the actual discussion, ZERO.
at least this time you tried to stay on topic but once again fact destroy your failed post, good job!
anything else on topic youd like to discuss . . honestly without fantasy?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

weird i dont see a quote of me saying what you lied about and CLAIMED i said
Translation, you lied about what i said and now you are hoping i get caught up in your deflection.

thanks for playing tim, your post loses as usual
thanks again buddy for totally destroying your own posts for me, your posts are O and lifetime against facts, please keep trying though you never fail on cracking me up with your dishonesty and failed posts. You posted ZERO facts that change anything of the actual discussion, ZERO.
at least this time you tried to stay on topic but once again fact destroy your failed post, good job!
anything else on topic youd like to discuss . . honestly without fantasy?


You're very welcome.


Tim-
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

You're very welcome.


Tim-

let me know when you can support your posted lie, ill be waiting
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Took the bait just like I KNEW you would. This goes to that predictability thing I keep referring too about you. Do you think I would make such a claim without the cold hard facts to back me up? Truth is that no Sir, it isn't just promiscuity that causes the spread of HIV. All things being equal, which in language comprehension a 4 year old would understand, means that all samples are assumed the same degree of latitude statistically, we see that 75% of all cases of HIV in the USA is by men having sex with men, the other 28% or so is by IDU, and the remaining is by heterosexuals that as a matter of FACT also fall into risky categories of which, being a bisexual, or having sex with someone that is, is an indicator. The cold hard truth is that at least in the USA and the West, a heterosexual who does not have sex with a bisexual or homosexual, or use intravenous drugs has a statistically zero chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime. Whereas a homosexual man has a 25% chance of contracting HIV in their lifetime, and a 50% chance before they reach the age of 30. Now why do you suppose that is? It is because gay men, especially young gay men between the ages of 15 to 24 simply do NOT practice safe sex. In many surveys done on the topic, they, by a huge margin, find safe sex to be atypical of the homosexual lifestyle. Barebacking and bug chasing, and drug mixing are behaviors that are embraced by the young homosexual, not avoided. They as a group or population demographic do NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT practice safe sex period! Also, to wet your whistle with some more unpopular facts, the increase in HIV over the past several years in spite of a dramatic effort to slow the spread, is among the homosexual youth, and black men are the highest growth category. Moreover, take into account that statistically heterosexuals test themselves for HIV by a whopping 80% compared to homosexuals who are way down with 22% even bothering to test themselves after a sexual encounter. So Sir, although it might sound all light and puffy the way you present and frame your argument, your argument fails in that, your premise is completely wrong. Homosexuality, despite all the inherent risks is not in and of itself a gay disease, however, homosexual culture is most certainly what is allowing it to stick around.
And would any of that be mitigated by banning gay marriage?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

And would any of that be mitigated by banning gay marriage?

nope, logically the argument could be made that bigotry and not allowing marriage perpetuates it.

not to mention its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage and what is being discussed but that fact will go ignored.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

By a gay judge, and then upheld not on the merits, but on procedure.

Tim-

So what if he was gay? And the arguments haven't held up in other courts either, no matter the sexuality of the judge. The only thing that seems to matter is the political or religious views of the judge. Their own bias against homosexuals is the only thing that prevents any judge from being able to see that there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

And would any of that be mitigated by banning gay marriage?

Promiscuity is mainstay of homosexual culture. Monogamy is not. I guess it might help a few, but policy should never be based on the few, or the exception to the rule. Liberals and left leaning libertarians always want the exception to become the rule when finding a problem worth fixing. Conservatives rarely see it that way.

Marriage is broken in the west and there are a number of reasons for it, too many to list, adding homosexuals to the mix won't make it any better, and probably make it less legitimate. Heck there are stalwarts who want to ban government from marriage altogether now. An idea I have admittedly considered myself, but not there yet. What is the upside to SSM I ask myself, and the answer always comes back as none.


Tim-
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

So what if he was gay? And the arguments haven't held up in other courts either, no matter the sexuality of the judge. The only thing that seems to matter is the political or religious views of the judge. Their own bias against homosexuals is the only thing that prevents any judge from being able to see that there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.



Well it kinda makes a difference to some of us. As to the legitimacy question or rationale, or whatever, it really is a matter of opinion. The excellent brief I posted echo's my sentiments exactly on the issue. I can see why it doesn't for you, and that's ok with me.

Tim-
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Well it kinda makes a difference to some of us. As to the legitimacy question or rationale, or whatever, it really is a matter of opinion. The excellent brief I posted echo's my sentiments exactly on the issue. I can see why it doesn't for you, and that's ok with me.

Tim-

Only those who think that it is okay to discriminate against gays using marriage or adoption laws.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Promiscuity is mainstay of homosexual culture. Monogamy is not. I guess it might help a few, but policy should never be based on the few, or the exception to the rule. Liberals and left leaning libertarians always want the exception to become the rule when finding a problem worth fixing. Conservatives rarely see it that way.

Marriage is broken in the west and there are a number of reasons for it, too many to list, adding homosexuals to the mix won't make it any better, and probably make it less legitimate. Heck there are stalwarts who want to ban government from marriage altogether now. An idea I have admittedly considered myself, but not there yet. What is the upside to SSM I ask myself, and the answer always comes back as none.


Tim-

Negative stereotyping of gays is "mainstay" of anti-gay/ssm people. Only ignorant people believe that monogamy is the exception to a promiscuity "rule" among gays.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Right, because that is an equal comparison..... :roll:

Certainly is. It's discrimination along an arbitrary line. Fighting SSM is analogous to fighting interracial marriage. The arguments are even neigh the same.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

So what if he was gay? And the arguments haven't held up in other courts either, no matter the sexuality of the judge. The only thing that seems to matter is the political or religious views of the judge. Their own bias against homosexuals is the only thing that prevents any judge from being able to see that there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.

exactly its meaningless in reality, only biased desperation would make anybody focus on something so inane.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I would love to know what "rights" gays don't have?

Agent J need not answer this question since you're on my ignore list...

Well for SSM argument, it's right to contract.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Certainly is. It's discrimination along an arbitrary line. Fighting SSM is analogous to fighting interracial marriage. The arguments are even neigh the same.

No. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Only those who think that it is okay to discriminate against gays using marriage or adoption laws.

exactly
only those that want to justify their biases, support of discrimination and or bigotry.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

No. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.

That's merely your opinion, not fact. I don't see many gay folk changing up their sexuality on a weekly basis. Besides, that's neither here nor there. It's arbitrary discrimination and using government issued and recognized contract to forbid recognized union between same sex couples.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

No. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.

sorry your opinion doesnt change the fact they are a similar comparison that has held up in court. what do you have to support you besides your proven wrong opinion?
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

No. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.

Sex is a changeable trait (at least legally and physical appearance anyway), yet still protected under equal protection. And sex/gender is the trait being used for the discrimination, not sexuality. Plus, if homosexuality were truly changeable, then so is attraction to those of different races. There would be no need for someone to have to be with someone of a different race. They could simply choose someone of their own race to be attracted to.
 
Back
Top Bottom