DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge!

[crebigsol]

Huh?
What the hell does all of this have to do with whether or not sex and marriage are supposed to be mutually inclusive?
Seriously, that's like saying "I'll consent to green being the best color... if you'll prove why the pro-choice policy on abortion is the right policy."

I seriously doubt if you know what you are talking about or even asking about. Which of the following statements do you think your statement aims to stand for?

I want marriage, I do not want sex,
I want marriage, I also want sex but only within marriage,
I want marriage, I also want all kinds of sex that is within and without marriage,
I do not want marriage, I want sex,
I do not want marriage, I do not want sex.
I want sex, anyway, wherever I go, no law would have existed to restrict my sexual behavior.

The lowest what?

One more reason for me to say "I seriously doubt if you know what you are talking about or even ask about." If you do not know, go and review joe Six-Pack's previous posts of 8-22-10, 618pm. Some cold water on the face will help to clear up some sleepy feeling. Do it, if you want to present a quality debate.

Also,What? Huh?
I don't know what the hell you're talking about! Literally, I don't know what the hell you just said! Can you try not typing with your chin?

If I can type with my chin, I would have had enough training on such skill like other group of people: stroking a companion's lower part of the body without knowing the tiresome on the neck. Then, I would have agreed with what they stand for long time ago and you wouldn't have been so irritated. Could I guess you already possess such skill because of the anguish you express about my comment to joe Six-Pack? If you didn't type with your chin, you sure have wasted your talent.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I want marriage, I do not want sex,
I want marriage, I also want sex but only within marriage,
I want marriage, I also want all kinds of sex that is within and without marriage,
I do not want marriage, I want sex,
I do not want marriage, I do not want sex.
I want sex, anyway, wherever I go, no law would have existed to restrict my sexual behavior.

I want marriage. I am apathetic about sex.

Does that answer your question?

One more reason for me to say "I seriously doubt if you know what you are talking about or even ask about." If you do not know, go and review joe Six-Pack's previous posts of 8-22-10, 618pm. Some cold water on the face will help to clear up some sleepy feeling. Do it, if you want to present a quality debate.

No, YOU need to be more clear about what you're talking about.

If I can type with my chin, I would have had enough training on such skill like other group of people: stroking a companion's lower part of the body without knowing the tiresome on the neck. Then, I would have agreed with what they stand for long time ago and you wouldn't have been so irritated. Could I guess you already possess such skill because of the anguish you express about my comment to joe Six-Pack?

Ok, now you're not even TRYING to make sense.

 

[crebigsol]

I want marriage. I am apathetic about sex.
Does that answer your question?

Of course not. There is a long distance between apathetic and "do not want". Apathetic allows you option, "do not want" can bind you into a promise. Does it answer your question?
Because you have discarded all other statements that I presented to you, you allow me to assume that you do not stand for "I want sex, anyway, wherever I go, no law would have exist to restrict my sexual behavior." In other words, you accept that your sexual behavior must abide certain laws. That is the points I tried to make with the case of the Iranian woman and the case of Clinton/Lewinsky. In your last statement, you objected my view about marriage/sex/law, now, you make yourself align with that view. Poor you!

No, YOU need to be more clear about what you're talking about.

English is not my native language, but I assume it is your native language. If I pointed out where to find the statement with exact time of the post, you still feel me not clear enough, I don't know how to further help you. Would it be too offensive to ask you to catch up with my English?

Ok, now you're not even TRYING to make sense.

Aren't you the one who suggests typing with chin?

After all these, I must admire one thing from you: You answered my post with lightening speed. It is awesome. Do you have some particular software and can you share the secret? I appreciate if you would.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Ok, Crebigsol, you're an idiot, and I will NOT feed the troll, anymore.

 

[crebigsol]

Ok, Crebigsol, you're an idiot, and I will NOT feed the troll, anymore.

OK, educator, if you are a genius, why "inside your mother" is a good location to choose? Whatever inside there will be flushed out in no more than 28 days. How much wisdom can someone accumulate during this period in an extremely confined area? Given that he is allowed to stay there for 9 months, he still comes out as a sucker. No wonder American education goes down hill so rapidly!

 

[middleagedgamer]

That's it. Crebigsol is blocked.

 

[crebigsol]

That's it. Crebigsol is blocked.

In case I am blocked, this forum will lose its neutral stand, becoming obviously biased but favoring toward those who use vulgar language such as inside someone's mother, and those who swear at debate participants with words like "what the hell", "idiot"... and those who need to expel opponenats revealing the damage that homosexuality would introduce to the society and the nation.
However, I appreciate the chance from this forum; now I continue.
So, Middleagedgamer, if you are not an idiot, do not draw statement from your imagination but from valid fact.

 

[joe six-pack]

Probably you don't know that your ignorance about legal practice related to marriage and sex in human history has disqualified you from presenting argument of minimum logic.

I "probably" don't know? If you want to insult members of this board, just do so. Don't be a coward about it.

However, I do not object you to gain back the qualification if you can do three things:
1. Prove that people having sex with marriages have shown far more legal suffering in population than people having sex without marriages.
2. Prove that the current law in Iran is not law. Then try to find out what happens to a woman named Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who is in death row waiting for being stoned.
3. Find out what happened to president Clinton in those years when Monica Lewinsky's name was clinging together with his.

None of this proves that "sex" is a requirement of marriage. Another stupid argument from you, what a surprise.

Before you complete those home works, I do not even bother answering any your other questions, some of which either indicate you lack of understanding the point of your opponent or turn out to support your opponent whom you intend to tear.

Maybe you should check your work before you turn it into teacher next time.

By the way, you still owe me one explanation in other post, in which you said the Constitution is supposedly protecting everybody equally, including the lowest. I asked if it means to also equally protect those who discriminate or even hate gays. The answer is still absent.

The answer is yes. "Hate" is a thought originating emotion. Laws can't control your thoughts.

Any more stupid requests? Since you asked so nicely I'd be happy to answer your asinine questions.

 

[joe six-pack]

That's it. Crebigsol is blocked.

Why because he's a troll? But that will ruin his fun.

 

[crebigsol]

I "probably" don't know? If you want to insult members of this board, just do so. Don't be a coward about it.

How does it constitute an insult if your opponent thinks your comment illogical? Wasn't based on the same conclusion you present your argument against an opponent? In other words, you allow yourself to conclude your opponent being illogical but do not allow your opponent to do the same to you. This only further exposes your being illogical.

None of this proves that "sex" is a requirement of marriage. Another stupid argument from you, what a surprise.

I told you your argument is lack of logic; was I wrong? Quote me a sentence from my statement that I said "'sex' is a requirement of marriage". My original statement is to say that sex and marriage are deeply involved each other. Even to the lowest level or logic, it should have been said that marriage is a legal requirement to permit sex, but not to say that "sex" is a requirement of marriage. Do not reverse it, otherwise you expose your ability of putting up logic again.

Maybe you should check your work before you turn it into teacher next time.

I didn't teach. But if you have enough self education, you certainly would let your opponent detect more logic in your arguments.

The answer is yes. "Hate" is a thought originating emotion. Laws can't control your thoughts.

So all laws that punish discrimination and hate against gays are unconstitutional. Thanks! If you are a high rank lawyer or government agent, your words certainly helps to reduce the persecution from the homosexual group towards those who disagree homosexual activity. With your level of logic, I doubt it you are any of those high rank people, though.

Any more stupid requests? Since you asked so nicely I'd be happy to answer your asinine questions.

Is answering stupid question the ability you see fit with your ability? In that case I definitely disappoint you except one:
Why commenting your statement lacking logic is an insult to you, but assuming and saying question from your opponent stupid is not? I don't see "lacking" is a word that has insulting quality, but "stupid" is.
Logic, logic, logic!