celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What a fail, you said it right hereLMAO 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
This is where it all comes crumbling down for you man... I caught you.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:
2) yes, I do2.) 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
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?
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.
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.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
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
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.
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
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...
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.)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
You said NO I DO NOT THINK THAT... how can it be any more obvious than that?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:
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?
I am afraid you just don't get it.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.
Yes, it DOES. Just because you think people can fight for it doesn't change what YOU think the laws should be.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."
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?
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 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
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?
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.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
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
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.)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.
what do you mean "what?"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.)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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?