• 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!

Gays beware

False, obviously.

"we 'ALL'" are not attempting to "cleverly" cast dispersions on my character.

Only left-wingers supporting the oxymoronic term "marriage" for SS-Couples' relevant relationships are doing that.

Some of the most passionate anti SSM people are really repressed homosexuals. Just sayin.
 
In 1958, 94% opposed interracial marriages. Now only 14% do. The opposition to gay marriage is declining at a much faster rate.

I wonder why gay people are the new blacks??
 
Some of the most passionate anti SSM people are really repressed homosexuals. Just sayin.

Its funny how people supposedly defending homosexuals use homosexuality as an ad hominem attack.
 
I wonder what the ratio of gay black men is, compared to whites?

Gay black Islamic men, now there is a group some people will get orgasmic over in their hatred
 
Yeah yeah yeah... Anyone who disagrees with you is a hater. More ad hominems.

That really stuck in your craw huh. I didn't post any ad hominems.

gotta hate someone, don't see any ad hominems there, perhaps you dint know what that word means.
 
That really stuck in your craw huh. I didn't post any ad hominems.

gotta hate someone, don't see any ad hominems there, perhaps you dint know what that word means.

And there you go again... A bit more slyly this time though.

1) brushing off someone's point by calling them a "hater" in an attempt to discredit them when no such "hate" rhetoric was used is by definition an attack on the person and not their argument.

2) you tried this tactic again in the post above. Instead of using the ever-popular "hater" BS, you tried to insult my intelligence by suggesting I wasn't smart enough to know what an argumentum ad hominem was. Nice try.

And yes, it does irritate me that this ridiculous tactic is used so often by lefties when confronted by someone who disagrees with them on just about any subject.
 
Has anyone tried playing the video, then had it say "Embedding disabled by request Watch on YouTube"?

Yes, I just clicked the underlined link and went right to it. They do this because they want you to sit through the advertisement, lol. :)
 
And there you go again... A bit more slyly this time though.
There I go again doing what?
1) brushing off someone's point by calling them a "hater" in an attempt to discredit them when no such "hate" rhetoric was used is by definition an attack on the person and not their argument.
Read again, didn't call anybody a hater. I said, "gotta hate something." no still no ad hominem.

Clearly someone has a persecution complex
(fyi that was an ad hominem)
2) you tried this tactic again in the post above. Instead of using the ever-popular "hater" BS, you tried to insult my intelligence by suggesting I wasn't smart enough to know what an argumentum ad hominem was. Nice try.
I don't think you are.
And yes, it does irritate me that this ridiculous tactic is used so often by lefties when confronted by someone who disagrees with them on just about any subject.
Not a lefty. It irritates you because you can't claim persecution on a statement that wasn't an attack.

It only fits if it fits.
 
Gay black Islamic men, now there is a group some people will get orgasmic over in their hatred

Yes, when you insult Islam, they strap on vests that shoot out rainbow confetti. Yes, I'm going to hell. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom