davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
We place restrictions on types of contracts all of the time. Not really a good argument there skippy.
Read through the thread. I didn't claim he said that did I?
That actually doesn't make my argument fail.
Certainly is. It's discrimination along an arbitrary line. Fighting SSM is analogous to fighting interracial marriage. The arguments are even neigh the same.
Those rights didn't exist until they were arbitrarily made up.
Yes, but not upon arbitrary restrictions purposefully devised to isolate and discriminate against a particular people.
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
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.
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."Oh please.. Almost every survey ever done on the subject says you're either sadly misinformed or naïve.
Tim-
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 NewsNo. Race is an unchangeable trait, despite what Michael Jackson thought, homosexuality is not.
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.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....
Then you have very little understanding of the Constitution, or your nation in general.Everything is good and legal until someone says it shouldn't be legal. That's HOW laws work in this country.
Tim-
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.
Oh goodie, please share this proof..
Tim-
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,
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.
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
The rules aren't arbitrary.
That is fact actually.
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.
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."
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
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
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: 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.
BOOM! called it, i knew you would dodge it thank you for exposing your failed posts again:lamo You love to make up your own definition of "facts".
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"
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.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.
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.
Constitution doesn't protect SSM.
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?