Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

Granule said:
You know why, WB. You've been told, probably a thousand times, but you still can't shut up about it. Why?
Click to expand...
No, Granule, I have not been told at all. In fact, most of the time they avoid answering me. You knw, kinda like you did.
Granule said:
Thus sayeth the degenerate law breakers. We're here to educate the degenerate law breakers, or stop them in their tracks. You won the abortion debate, for now, but there's no way in hell you're picking up the homosexual invasion of marriage.
Click to expand...
Degenerate law breakers? What law have I broken? I am talking about changing the law. Once again, no legitimate argument.

Granule said:
Wrong. I'm using tradition to support existing laws and the sanctity of marriage. You are using the logical fallacy of appeal to same sex attraction.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have no idea what a Logical Fallacy is?

Granule said:
Not in this case. Stop confusing improvement and progress with the homosexual invasion of marriage.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, in this case. This is progress. This is the defeat of ignorance and the triumph of truth.
Granule said:
Then Secularism should also have no bearing, as we're not a clan of heathen tree worshippers, either. Get over yourself, WB.
Click to expand...
Just as an FYI, secularism is no religion at all. A clan of heathen tree worshippers would be paganism. Glad to help you with your education.
Granule said:
Thank you for your permission. ;)
Click to expand...
Sarcasm? So far this is as close to a real argument as you have made.
Granule said:
No they won't. We won't put up with it. Even if you tree beards do get your way, it won't last long. Either we'll have wiped you out in civil war, or you'll all be under sharia law shortly after we split the nation in two. And you thought Christians were brutal and uncaring...
Click to expand...
Ah, now we get to the threat of attack and of Sharia Law. No, you won't split the nation in half over gay marriage. There might be a few of you willing to go tha far based on your hatred. But most of those ignorant fools will probably be shot in the first wave. Then we can settle in for a long prosperous life under secular law, and allow all to worship as they see fit.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, Granule, I have not been told at all. In fact, most of the time they avoid answering me. You knw, kinda like you did.
Degenerate law breakers? What law have I broken? I am talking about changing the law. Once again, no legitimate argument.

In other words, you have no idea what a Logical Fallacy is?


Oh yes, in this case. This is progress. This is the defeat of ignorance and the triumph of truth.

Just as an FYI, secularism is no religion at all. A clan of heathen tree worshippers would be paganism. Glad to help you with your education.

Sarcasm? So far this is as close to a real argument as you have made.

Ah, now we get to the threat of attack and of Sharia Law. No, you won't split the nation in half over gay marriage. There might be a few of you willing to go tha far based on your hatred. But most of those ignorant fools will probably be shot in the first wave. Then we can settle in for a long prosperous life under secular law, and allow all to worship as they see fit.
Click to expand...

why not just granny on ignore, his posts are predictable and of no worth
 
Gatorman said:
As per damned usual with you, WB. It's the fault of someone else. How does it feel to be the biggest idiot on the board?
Click to expand...

You failed to make a single legitimate argument, and you call me the biggest idiot on the board? lol

I get that you hate gays. I have no problem with that. I am betting they don't either. But to deny them the benefits of marriage simply because you hate them is not going to work.

Come back and play when you have more than the "Marriage has always been..." and "It is a religious institution" arguments. Neither of those is worth the bandwidth necessary to share them.
 
WinterBorn said:
You failed to make a single legitimate argument, and you call me the biggest idiot on the board? lol

I get that you hate gays. I have no problem with that. I am betting they don't either. But to deny them the benefits of marriage simply because you hate them is not going to work.

Come back and play when you have more than the "Marriage has always been..." and "It is a religious institution" arguments. Neither of those is worth the bandwidth necessary to share them.
Click to expand...

Wow. What a stretch. I'm one of the original rainbow warriors. It ain't me, goodbuddy. It's YOU.
 
Haiku said:
You're boring the hell out of me. You just want to argue not discuss...I responded to what you had to say and you're trying to make an issue out of nothing. Have at it...enjoy yourself but I'm not going to play these stupid games.
Click to expand...

I've got to admit you've been quicker on the uptake when it comes to Yurt and his "debating style" than I was...I tried over and over the engage the whiner in debate and time after time he'd make certain any discussion got bogged down in idiotic semantics.

He isn't interested in debate, just in calling others names.
 
Bijou said:
Time to talk *around* the turds...

It's kind of funny the way the tactics are all the same, on every board. There's always the guy/girl who craves attention but since s/he cannot engage in a meaningful way, for whatever reason, they just filibuster the shit out of the discussion with insufferably-boring obtuseness...hey, I guess any attention, even negative attention, is better than nothing for the desperate types. :(
Click to expand...


OMG you have absolutely described Yurt EXACTLY!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
(Originally Posted by WinterBorn) What legit reasons do you have for denying gays the right to marriage?
Click to expand...

you've had the answer to that a thousand times.....it's just that you accept no reasons as legitimate except your own......
Click to expand...

I heard one of the reasons is people might want to marry their dog. They're also concerned about where it will all end.

Let's see what's happening now..... Nadine Schweigert, North Dakota Woman, 'Marries Herself,' Opens Up About Self-Marriage (Exceprt) A 36-year-old North Dakota woman who married herself in a commitment ceremony last March has now spoken about her self-marriage choice in an interview with Anderson Cooper. (End)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html

Then we have.....Woman, warehouse wed as some object reference to “gay marriage”. (Excerpt) A beaming bride, a crumbling warehouse – Babylonia Aivaz said it’s a love that will never die, as she exchanged wedding vows with the Seattle building Sunday. (End)
http://capitolhill.komonews.com/new...ehouse-wed-some-object-reference-gay-marriage

It's been referred to as a gay marriage although I'm not sure how the gender of the building was determined. On the other hand I suppose some things should be kept private such as building genatalia. Otherwise, heterosexual couples may be required to expose their genatalia during marriage ceremonies. While such a practice would no doubt increase attendance it's possible, after viewing such, it may lead to an increase in objections when the presiding official asks if anyone knows of any reason the marriage should not take place. And, God forbid, if the couple had been chaste and it was their first view of their partner's genatalia and "irregularities" were noticed.....well, I don't think it's a slippery slope anyone wants to go down on.

So, regarding yor concerns PmP, I'm sure solutions can be found. :)
 
apple0154 said:
I heard one of the reasons is people might want to marry their dog. They're also concerned about where it will all end.

Let's see what's happening now..... Nadine Schweigert, North Dakota Woman, 'Marries Herself,' Opens Up About Self-Marriage (Exceprt) A 36-year-old North Dakota woman who married herself in a commitment ceremony last March has now spoken about her self-marriage choice in an interview with Anderson Cooper. (End)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html

Then we have.....Woman, warehouse wed as some object reference to “gay marriage”. (Excerpt) A beaming bride, a crumbling warehouse – Babylonia Aivaz said it’s a love that will never die, as she exchanged wedding vows with the Seattle building Sunday. (End)
http://capitolhill.komonews.com/new...ehouse-wed-some-object-reference-gay-marriage

It's been referred to as a gay marriage although I'm not sure how the gender of the building was determined. On the other hand I suppose some things should be kept private such as building genatalia. Otherwise, heterosexual couples may be required to expose their genatalia during marriage ceremonies. While such a practice would no doubt increase attendance it's possible, after viewing such, it may lead to an increase in objections when the presiding official asks if anyone knows of any reason the marriage should not take place. And, God forbid, if the couple had been chaste and it was their first view of their partner's genatalia and "irregularities" were noticed.....well, I don't think it's a slippery slope anyone wants to go down on.

So, regarding yor concerns PmP, I'm sure solutions can be found. :)
Click to expand...

how did bestiality and gay marriage get combined in this thread - a bit over the top what

now how about plural marriage, that should be considered
 
Don Quixote said:
how did bestiality and gay marriage get combined in this thread - a bit over the top what

now how about plural marriage, that should be considered
Click to expand...

Bestiality is one of the "slippery slope" arguments offered as a reason not to allow gay marriage. It is pure nonsense, but that doesn't stop it from being posted. Although to be fair, this time I didn't see it put up as a legitimate reason against, only as a preemptive argument.
 
I still want to know what they think of divorce? I think it is the Inge most destructive thing to marriage. It is one of the things that Jesus addressed according to the Bible. Then there is re-marriage, it was considered adultery and a death penalty offense.

I never get an answer. People who object to gay marriage almost never object to divorce and remarriage.
 
Didn't you just hear the line, 'marriage should be re-enforced, not re-defined'.......

I don't know and don't really care what Jesus or Allah or Lucifer says about the subject and thats not the business of government.....

But building strawmen to support your agenda ain't gonna do it.....

Divorce is just a legal mechanism of getting out of a contract.....
 
Marriage is just a contract...everyone who wants to enter into it has the constitutional right to do so. Religious objections should have nothing to do with making law in this country.
 
bravo said:
Didn't you just hear the line, 'marriage should be re-enforced, not re-defined'.......

I don't know and don't really care what Jesus or Allah or Lucifer says about the subject and thats not the business of government.....

But building strawmen to support your agenda ain't gonna do it.....

Divorce is just a legal mechanism of getting out of a contract.....
Click to expand...

If its just a legal contract, then why not let gays enkoy the same benefits of that contract?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top