Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Southern Man said:
Bullshit. Marriages between men and women of different races has occurred throughout human history. It is moral normal healthy and natural results in normal children. None of this is true with queer marriage.
Click to expand...

Then by your logic; marriages that don't produce children should be dissolved and those people not allowed to remarry, unless they can prove that they are capable of producing a child!! :good4u:
 
Dixie said:
And no one would force you to accept Doggie Marriage either, Dumo!
Click to expand...
However the dog would not be able to consent and would therefore be a victim. That's exactly the kind of thing the government is for, to protect the victim.

No matter how many desperate ways you try to make it fit into the round hole this square peg isn't going; until a dog can sign a contract with full comprehension it is impossible for a dog to consent to these types of contracts.
 
Damocles said:
It can. It only took 8 years of explaining this solution to you before you took up the call. Since then we've spent 2 years with you suggesting I want to "denigrate what you believe in"...
Click to expand...

You're full of shit, you're sitting here arguing FOR GAY MARRIAGE! Don't pretend you adopted MY solution 8 years ago, you don't even support it NOW! You want to lobby with the idiots who seek to destroy a religious institution, because you are a fucking half-wit moron like they are!
 
Dixie said:
You're full of shit, you're sitting here arguing FOR GAY MARRIAGE! Don't pretend you adopted MY solution 8 years ago, you don't even support it NOW! You want to lobby with the idiots who seek to destroy a religious institution, because you are a fucking half-wit moron like they are!
Click to expand...
No, I haven't.

I have said about a zillion times what I support over the years we have known each other and it has never changed. Although what you support did change, about 2 years ago you started espousing what I proposed all that time as a "solution", your argument then suddenly "assumed" that I argued "for" gay "marriage". I find the solution elegant, within government power, and the right thing to do.

BTW - You still don't seem to realize that this "fix" we both present would immediately make actual "gay marriage" happen. There are many churches that are willing to marry homosexual couples.

For the eleventy-billionth time:

I believe that we should get government out of marriage. That all secular licenses should be issued for "unions" and those who wish to be married can just go to their respective house of worship and have at it, so long as all parties are consenting adults. It's what I have always said from the first days of politics.com, it's what I have said since I first understood the concept of how I believe that government power should be used, and it will always be what I say as long as I continue to fight for all individuals' freedoms.
 
Dixie said:
No, actually, I am the open minded one in this debate. I have proposed a solution which would give ALL SIDES what they claim to want, and it is summarily rejected by those who are too closed-minded to compromise any at all on their views.
Click to expand...

Then let's make all marriages "civil unions" and do away with the religious connatation.
 
Dixie said:
Dogs consent ALL THE TIME! BIGOT!
Click to expand...
Dogs cannot consent to any contractual agreement. They do not have the capacity to comprehend. No matter how many times you repeat it, it still doesn't become reality. Dogs cannot consent to contracts because they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand even the concept. Wagging tails notwithstanding...
 
Damocles said:
Dogs cannot consent to any contractual agreement. They do not have the capacity to comprehend. No matter how many times you repeat it, it still doesn't become reality. Dogs cannot consent to contracts because they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand even the concept. Wagging tails notwithstanding...
Click to expand...

Homosexuals do not have the capacity to understand traditional marriage... so there!
 
Dixie said:
From a "governmental" standpoint, that is exactly what I proposed we do!
Click to expand...
Question, we propose the same solution, why is it you think that would lead to "dogs and cats, horses and donkeys" walking down the aisle with you only when it is espoused by me? It's inane.

Oh, I know. It's because I don't think we should limit such unions to two consenting adults...
 
Damocles said:
Question, we propose the same solution, why is it you think that would lead to "dogs and cats, horses and donkeys" walking down the aisle with you only when it is espoused by me? It's inane.

Oh, I know. It's because I don't think we should limit such unions to two consenting adults...
Click to expand...

Because you are sitting here like a fucking idiot, arguing IN FAVOR of Gay Marriage, redefining by law, of the word "marriage" to include a deviant sexual lifestyle! That is NOT what I have proposed, and what I have vehemently argued against!
 
Dixie said:
Because you are sitting here like a fucking idiot, arguing IN FAVOR of Gay Marriage, redefining by law, of the word "marriage" to include a deviant sexual lifestyle! That is NOT what I have proposed, and what I have vehemently argued against!
Click to expand...
You are flat wrong about what I am in favor of, and by this time it is deliberately so. Our first "disagreement" in this thread was when I said that I would support these unions even with more than two partners so long as all involved were fully informed and were consenting adults...

I have stated forever and a day that government should not be involved in marriage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I think I've seen this tried before....you can't defeat my logic by arguing with what I said, so you put down what you wish I had said because you could have won the argument if I had been stupid enough to say it......using this method leaves you looking like the fucking idiot you truly are.....
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
But then asswipes like yourself, tend to want to exert control over those that they don't agree with; because of your low self-esteem and your fear of change.

Now that we have the greetings out of the way, why don't you try to show where I'm in error, instead of just stating that I am.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
aw what a shame....US doesn't have an argument and is forced to resort to insults.....as for showing where you are error, you have attempted to portray my innermost thoughts as your argument.....being more intimately familiar with my innermost thoughts than you, I am able to simply state you are wrong without fear of conflicting evidence......
Click to expand...

In addressing your last diatribe, you try to make it appear that you are above what you are complaining about.

Unfortunetly; your short term memory has affected your ability to remember things that you've posted earlier.

When you find the time to climb down from your hypocritical high horse; maybe you can see that before you decide to point fingers at others, you might want to remove the beam from thine own eye first.
Please refer to the areas in bold print.

Once you accomplish that small detail, you might be able to find a way to pull your own thumb out of your ass. :good4u:
 
Damocles said:
Blathering. Now you attempt to say they haven't the intellectual capacity to understand contracts?
Click to expand...

Oh sure... contracts they understand... they just don't understand or comprehend traditional marriage, thus they shouldn't be allowed to marry! That was YOUR position, I am just applying it the same way to homosexuals. In other words, you have an untenable position, one that contradicts itself, one that is based on your narrow-minded and bigoted viewpoint, without regard for the viewpoint of others. In on instance, you wish to apply your own bigoted standards and judgments of what animals can and can't do, what they have the capacity and wherewithal to do, and on the other hand... it's not any of your business, not any of your concern, and you want to lambaste others for disagreeing with you on that.
 
Damocles said:
You are flat wrong about what I am in favor of, and by this time it is deliberately so. Our first "disagreement" in this thread was when I said that I would support these unions even with more than two partners so long as all involved were fully informed and were consenting adults...

I have stated forever and a day that government should not be involved in marriage.
Click to expand...

Then stop lobbying for this asinine concept of "Gay Marriage" and shut the fuck up! You strangely somehow agree with my solution, but you can't help take the opportunity to denigrate and trash religious customs if you can! DAMO: "I support Civil Unions, but I'd be alright with Gay Marriage!" ...Fucking MORON!
 
Dixie said:
Then stop lobbying for this asinine concept of "Gay Marriage" and shut the fuck up! You strangely somehow agree with my solution, but you can't help take the opportunity to denigrate and trash religious customs if you can! DAMO: "I support Civil Unions, but I'd be alright with Gay Marriage!" ...Fucking MORON!
Click to expand...
What you need to do is realize that this solution would allow gay marriage, there are many churches that already perform those ceremonies. We agree on what the government should do, let's work towards it rather than spending myriad hours with you assuming what I believe rather than reading what I say.
 
Dixie said:
No one is trying to marry dogs YET! The "ISSUE" is you trashing a religious tradition because you are a godless piece of human garbage who doesn't have any respect for the beliefs of others. Otherwise, you would embrace a solution which satisfies ALL SIDES and gives everyone what they want. If you ever managed to cajole the majority of Americans into agreeing with your idiocy of Gay Marriage, the next step would indeed be dogs, horses, multiple partners, etc. Because the focus of the "ISSUE" for you, is not, and has never been, the equality of benefits to homosexual couples. It has, and always will be, the destruction of a religious tradition, and ANYTHING that advances that cause, you will support.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope straw man argument.
You fail; because using your "logic", babies should not be allowed to drink milk.
The reason is, every drug addict drank milk sometime in their life and therefore drinking mill leads to drug addiction.

You have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
:facepalm:
 
Southern Man said:
In nature the creatures undergoing harmful mutations can't reproduce or otherwise die off. This is exactly what happens in nature with queers. Don't fight nature, as you will always ultimately lose.
Click to expand...

Then you're in favor of denying the idea of marriage to people who are unable to, or choose to, not reproduce! :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top