• 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

its a perfect argument when those restrictions violated equality, rights and can be found to be illegal discriminate. ooooops tell us that cool failed skippy line again.

Those rights didn't exist until they were arbitrarily made up.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

We place restrictions on types of contracts all of the time. Not really a good argument there skippy.

Yes, but not upon arbitrary restrictions purposefully devised to isolate and discriminate against a particular people.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Read through the thread. I didn't claim he said that did I?

didnt say you did but thats exactly what makes you post/link 100% meaningless
since he didnt say none of them can change nothing in your post changes anything

again thank you for proving yourself wrong and me right. . . .again
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

That actually doesn't make my argument fail.

actually it does, it proves that no matter what you think about "changing" its meaningless to legal marriage and it proves if you think it matter then it makes your posts hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
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.

To preface my request, know I do not have a dog in this fight, period.

Your statement seems a generally popular retort to all disagreements. It seems that those who use same may be young and not truly know,, and understand via experience, racism. Would you please explain in some detail your analogy. Maybe you might perceive that I believe today's common usage of such accusations is in the very least demeaning to those who lived through real racism that is noway fathomable by young people of today.

Please, could you better detail your analogy.

Thank you, have a good day, sir

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

Those rights didn't exist until they were arbitrarily made up.

thanks for you opinion but thats meanignless to facts, law, rights and the court cases that disagree with your false opinion. what do you base your opinion on again? oh thats right nothing that matters, good job skippy.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Yes, but not upon arbitrary restrictions purposefully devised to isolate and discriminate against a particular people.

The rules aren't arbitrary.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

didnt say you did but thats exactly what makes you post/link 100% meaningless
since he didnt say none of them can change nothing in your post changes anything

again thank you for proving yourself wrong and me right. . . .again

I hope you are comfortable in your little fantasy world. You should read the entire context of the thread. I had a point, you just like to troll around with anything I say and take things out of context to "prove you write," when actually you just look like a bully and an idiot. :lamo
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

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.

Oh please.. Almost every survey ever done on the subject says you're either sadly misinformed or naïve.

Tim-
Mr. Hicup is correct on this matter; almost all surveys of Homosexuals, in relationships, marriages, or single, showed polyamorous tendencies. But, that still shouldn't change the law; there's nothing illegal about promiscuity, and heterosexuals, including married couples, have stable rates of promiscuous behavior. Again, banning SSM wouldn't "stop" what they're doing, so it's a non-sequitur to say, "They're promiscuous, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry."

No. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.
Michael Jackson had Vitiligo. Vitiligo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia His autopsy confirmed it; he was turning white because of this skin disease. Michael Jackson autopsy report confirms singer suffered from vitiligo, wore wig, had tattooed makeup - NY Daily News

You keep going back to Gay Conversion Therapy as if it works; There's still no credible evidence of it ever working, many of these "ex-gays" have recently said that they still are and always were gay. Conversion therapy advocate issues formal apology, renounces “ex-gay” past - Salon.com The Guyliner: Sorry, There's No Cure For Gay - Why Not Pray For an Antidote to Stupid Instead?
Yet gay folk expect everyone bow down to them and abandon their personal beliefs and politics to suit their gay agenda...

Individuals have just as much of a right to be anti-gay as the gays have to be gay.. Yet the progressives and the confused authoritarians don't realize, respect or even understand that....
Absolutely not, the gays don't give half a crap about changing what you believe. But, religious beliefs shouldn't be enshrined as laws; that's not a gay issue, that's an American issue. You can be anti-gay all you like, but it doesn't give you the right to pass anti-gay laws; just as the KKK is legal, but racist laws aren't.

Everything is good and legal until someone says it shouldn't be legal. That's HOW laws work in this country.


Tim-
Then you have very little understanding of the Constitution, or your nation in general.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

thanks for you opinion but thats meanignless to facts, law, rights and the court cases that disagree with your false opinion. what do you base your opinion on again? oh thats right nothing that matters, good job skippy.

That is fact actually.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Oh goodie, please share this proof.. ;)


Tim-

"Gay couples aren't monogamous"? People saying this have no idea what they are talking about.

First, some straight info on cheating/non-monogamy.

A nationally representative survey of 884 men put the number at only 23 percent. A much bigger but unrepresentative MSNBC survey found that nearly half of adults cheat—exactly the same percentage as the San Francisco study found with gay men. Other reports have found the same—that 50 percent of married men cheat—and one also found that the vast majority will not admit to it,

So you think gay men are promiscuous? | Patrick Strudwick | Comment is free | theguardian.com

There is only a one percentage point difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals in their promiscuity: 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer sexual partners; 99% of straight people have had the same number. Tellingly, OkCupid found that it is just 2% of gay people that are having 23% of the total reported gay sex.

Heck my numbers were even way too high.

More info.

Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous | Gay Star News

Data from the US National Surveys of Family Growth appears to show that American gay men have become less promiscuous over the decade that same-sex marriages first began to become available to them. - See more at: Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous | Gay Star News

Hey look, same sex marriage being available appears to do exactly what many supporters have said, that it is likely to help encourage monogamy and discourage promiscuity.

The majority of past data came from horribly flawed studies, studies done on AIDS/HIV positive people (hello, they got an STI, of course they aren't likely to be very monogamous), or in bars (again, not exactly a place for discouraging promiscuity, for straights or gays). I bet if we did the same types of surveys in the same way of straight people, we would get pretty similar results to those found in those old studies of gay men.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

The rules aren't arbitrary.

really? do tell then
what are they factually based on that should matter vs equal rights and fighting against illegal discrimination.

what FACTUAL reasons are they based on that trump those things
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

That is fact actually.

nothign you said was fact, nothing.
if you disagree in your next post, post the factual support to make it so.
no deflections, no spin, no double talking

post the facts that make it arbitrary and not based on equal rights and fighting illegal/unfair discrimination.

i bet you dodge it and if you dont it will be another failure, cant wait to read these FACT you claim to have
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Not really a choice, and again neither here nor there. These are consenting adults and you're blocking their right to contract based on some arbitrary discrimination.

This is a new application. ( right to contract )
Okay, I'm about to learn all types of things today. Could you explain the application of this to personal relationships as opposed to the acquisition and ownership ?

G'day Ikari

Thom Paine
 
Last edited:
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Mr. Hicup is correct on this matter; almost all surveys of Homosexuals, in relationships, marriages, or single, showed polyamorous tendencies. But, that still shouldn't change the law; there's nothing illegal about promiscuity, and heterosexuals, including married couples, have stable rates of promiscuous behavior. Again, banning SSM wouldn't "stop" what they're doing, so it's a non-sequitur to say, "They're promiscuous, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry."

While promiscuity is not a factor in determining rights, he still isn't correct anymore. The belief is founded on old data and surveys, which have been found to be wrong and flawed. Plus, they weren't being compared to all straight people, mainly only married straight people, which is another flaw in the studies. I gave the information for why he is wrong.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I hope you are comfortable in your little fantasy world. You should read the entire context of the thread. I had a point, you just like to troll around with anything I say and take things out of context to "prove you write," when actually you just look like a bully and an idiot. :lamo

translation: your post is still factually a failure, you helped proved that and are now deflecting and nobody honest buys it. but please continue to deny that fact and lash out. it makes it more funny.

nothing was taken out of context, your post was factually meaningless to the discussion. if you disagree by all means prove otherwise.
also did you just mistype "write" and call somebody an idiot in the same post? WOW

using facts never makes one look like a bully or idiot, its actually funny to even read somebody claim that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

nothign you said was fact, nothing.
if you disagree in your next post, post the factual support to make it so.
no deflections, no spin, no double talking

post the facts that make it arbitrary and not based on equal rights and fighting illegal/unfair discrimination.

i bet you dodge it and if you dont it will be another failure, cant wait to read these FACT you claim to have

:lamo You love to make up your own definition of "facts".
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

translation: your post is still factually a failure, you helped proved that and are now deflecting and nobody honest buys it. but please continue to deny that fact and lash out. it makes it more funny.

nothing was taken out of context, your post was factually meaningless to the discussion. if you disagree by all means prove otherwise.
also did you just mistype "write" and call somebody an idiot in the same post? WOW

using facts never makes one look like a bully or idiot, its actually funny to even read somebody claim that.
You don't use facts. You say the same nonsense over and over and never post anything of true substance. You are just like Obama "your way or the highway"
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

:lamo You love to make up your own definition of "facts".
BOOM! called it, i knew you would dodge it thank you for exposing your failed posts again

translation: you cant post any so you post another lie and deflection.

i will ask AGAIN
if you disagree in your next post, post the factual support to make it so.
no deflections, no spin, no double talking

post the facts that make it arbitrary and not based on equal rights and fighting illegal/unfair discrimination.

i bet you dodge it and if you dont it will be another failure, cant wait to read these FACT you claim to have
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

You don't use facts. You say the same nonsense over and over and never post anything of true substance. You are just like Obama "your way or the highway"

translation: you still cant defend your failed post and are continuing to deflect. totally hilarious.

so since you claim i am wrong can you explain to us why your link FACTUALLY matter to his comment?
cant wait to read it. I bet you dodge this question again.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Those rights didn't exist until they were arbitrarily made up.
For a guy who has the Constitution as his Avatar, you certainly don't understand it. Every possible right is yours, mine, and everyone's to have. They don't get "made", they get protected. It was their right at 1776 as much as it is now; that the law didn't reflect that, is no more or less curious than how slavery was tolerated.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

For a guy who has the Constitution as his Avatar, you certainly don't understand it. Every possible right is yours, mine, and everyone's to have. They don't get "made", they get protected. It was their right at 1776 as much as it is now; that the law didn't reflect that, is no more or less curious than how slavery was tolerated.

on this specific topi many have echoed your exact post and im sure you wont be the last. I also find it odd that one who has that avatar ignores it for this topic and claims foul on this rights simply because they don't like them.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

For a guy who has the Constitution as his Avatar, you certainly don't understand it. Every possible right is yours, mine, and everyone's to have. They don't get "made", they get protected. It was their right at 1776 as much as it is now; that the law didn't reflect that, is no more or less curious than how slavery was tolerated.

Then you would know SSM is not a right.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

on this specific topi many have echoed your exact post and im sure you wont be the last. I also find it odd that one who has that avatar ignores it for this topic and claims foul on this rights simply because they don't like them.

Constitution doesn't protect SSM.
 
Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Constitution doesn't protect SSM.

The Constitution protects marriage and equal protection. Same sex marriage is simply a label for same sex couples entering into marriage, which is protected. Just as interracial marriage is simply a label for interracial couples entering into marriage, which again is protected.
 
Back
Top Bottom