How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

dixon76710 said:
Silly fool logic.
Click to expand...

Yurt is correct for once. You are not conveying any kind of point.

State your claim and use the quotes to back up your point.

The quotes can't make your point for you.

I have no idea what you are saying and am hardly about to read paragraphs to decipher something you are not willing to write a whole sentence about.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Without him the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost, D-Day wouldn't have happened, the Japanese naval cyphers wouldn't have been cracked...need I go on?
Click to expand...

If you think you are going to convince Bravo, you would have to go on and on.
 
OTE=bravo;921994]Well, that a different debate isn't it.......
Click to expand...

it is not a different debate. is the debate being argued in this very thread. do you understand the position you're arguing?


Government (the citizens) have EVERY RIGHT to use laws and regulation for the good of their citizens and society as they see fit....
Click to expand...

and we have the 14th amendment. you don't like it, go find a government and (the citizens) who agree with your world view, else, change the constitution. until then, you have squat.


Marriage.....to protect children, women, etc. is for the good of the those that enter into marriage......
Click to expand...

sorry bud....that is not american law.

otherwise.....don't fuckin' get married......no one forces marriage on anyone else......
Click to expand...

how about you fuckin leave if you don't like the 14th amendment? forcing marriage is a logical fallacy and really, quite stupid and irrelevant to the discussion.

the rules are the same for EVERYONE and for the same reasons now as in the past.......and sexual preference, sexual practice, love or hate, has no relevance in the matter
Click to expand...

ah....the oft quoted lie. the rules are not the same for everyone. if they were, then same sex couples could get married.

stop being so obtuse because you are unwilling to see any other viewpoint.
 
Return of Dune said:
Yurt is correct for once. You are not conveying any kind of point.

State your claim and use the quotes to back up your point.

The quotes can't make your point for you.

I have no idea what you are saying and am hardly about to read paragraphs to decipher something you are not willing to write a whole sentence about.
Click to expand...

DUNE TRYING TO COMPREHEND
nukey_mo.jpg
 
Return of Dune said:
Yurt is correct for once. You are not conveying any kind of point.

State your claim and use the quotes to back up your point.

The quotes can't make your point for you.

I have no idea what you are saying and am hardly about to read paragraphs to decipher something you are not willing to write a whole sentence about.
Click to expand...

:lol:

you crack me up.....you agree with me more often than you want your liberal friends to admit.

though props to you for coming out today.

:D
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Without him the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost, D-Day wouldn't have happened, the Japanese naval cyphers wouldn't have been cracked...need I go on?
Click to expand...


Does that negate my comment in some way ?......

God works in mysterious ways........

I didn't coin the line, I'm just reminding you of it.....

Whats your point and wheres the beef.
 
Eye said:
what is the point of your cut and paste? it does not make my point any less valid. in fact, it makes you look like a moron.

care to actually explain how your random cut and paste counters my points? i doubt you can.
Click to expand...

Those are court decisions that all directly contradict your claim.
 
Eye said:
it is not a different debate. is the debate being argued in this very thread. do you understand the position you're arguing?

Perfectly.......


and we have the 14th amendment. you don't like it, go find a government and (the citizens) who agree with your world view, else, change the constitution. until then, you have squat.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this .....the citizens are the government.....we make the law, in accordance with the Constitution....EQUAL treatment for all.....regardless of sex, race, or religion...( or sexual orientation, hair color, weight, height, eye color, etc.......)


sorry bud....that is not american law.

What isn't American law....? Marriage was created for this reason....it has nothing to do with "American law".....it is historical fact....it is worldwide,
it existed before their was an America......and has endured...


how about you fuckin leave if you don't like the 14th amendment? forcing marriage is a logical fallacy and really, quite stupid and irrelevant to the discussion.


No one is forced to marry or forced to not marry.....the law that exists, exists for all of us........marriage still protects children and women from abuse..just as it was menat to......

ah....the oft quoted lie. the rules are not the same for everyone. if they were, then same sex couples could get married.

The rules are the same....no one.....I repeat no one, can marry a person of the same sex......what you demand is special treatment to a special group.....

stop being so obtuse because you are unwilling to see any other viewpoint.
Click to expand...


The other viewpoint is special treatment for a group that practices abnormal sex.....ie...sex between men.....no one is trying to prohibit that sex or control it in any way.....
those sex acts have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, ie...to protect the children and their mothers from exploitation.....


You want to have sex with men, have a ball,.....its your privilege......I don't care how you live your life.....just don't try to demand that I have to accept how you live your life, no matter what you do .......I really don't want to even know about it .
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
I accept them, don't you?

Some of you righties have a lot in common with supporters of Shari'ah law.
Click to expand...

Supporters of Shariah would execute them for being homosexual. We want to withold from them the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that the majority of Americans do not receive, because they are limited to just heterosexual couples, the only combination that can ever lead to the birth of a child.

The absurdity of your comparison demonstrates the absence of a legitimate argument.
 
dixon76710 said:
Supporters of Shariah would execute them for being homosexual. We want to withold from them the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that the majority of Americans do not receive, because they are limited to just heterosexual couples, the only combination that can ever lead to the birth of a child.

The absurdity of your comparison demonstrates the absence of a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Sperm from any male can fertilize an egg from any female. Sexual orientation has no bearing on that bit of biology. Your repeated attempts to claim marriage is strictly about procreation are absurd.
 
christiefan915 said:
In addition to bad teeth, you have a real fixation on the word "queer". Is it possible for you to discuss homosexuality without falling back on slurs?
Click to expand...

???? When did queer become a slur? You are aware that its the term the queers adopted. "Queer Theory" "Queer Nation", its their term.
 
WinterBorn said:
Not true at all. Sperm from any male can fertilize an egg from any female. Sexual orientation has no bearing on that bit of biology.
Click to expand...

"Heterosexual" as in a man and a woman who have sex with each other. As far as the government is concerned, a homosexual man and homosexual woman who have sexual relations with each other are a heterosexual couiple. OF COURSE!
 
dixon76710 said:
You are cofusing your unwillingness to read my post with the absence of a point in my post.
Click to expand...

No. If I read the thread, with the exact same perception you have, there would be no need for you to quote parts of it.
You are confusing your take on things with reality.
 
dixon76710 said:
Supporters of Shariah would execute them for being homosexual. We want to withold from them the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that the majority of Americans do not receive, because they are limited to just heterosexual couples, the only combination that can ever lead to the birth of a child.

The absurdity of your comparison demonstrates the absence of a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your argument, money, non-acceptance of homosexuality, or some combination of the two?

Take this April 2011 study from the Williams Institute.

They found there are "an estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States [who] identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender. This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans..."

Now. Forty-eight per cent (48%) of hetero Americans are married and receive the tax breaks and government benefits you mentioned. If every one of the 3.5% who identify as LGBT marry, the benefits they'll receive will add just a drop in the bucket to what the hetero marrieds get already. And it also raises the question does every married couple even take all the breaks and benefits they're entitled to. Because as I'm sure you know, some couples file as "Married, Filing Separately" and they get the fewest tax breaks of all. So the financial argument is not as cut-and-dried as you'd think.

I'm inclined to think, from reading your posts, that the tax and entitlement benefit of marriage is not your deciding factor in why gays shouldn't marry. Frankly, I think you don't approve of homosexuality, period, but are trying to cloak that position with a sort of "fairness" mantle, and a fantasy that this country would be overrun with homosexual couples whose incipient marriages will bankrupt us. Whatever. Whether it's money or approval of homosexuality, yours is a pitiful position to take and your snide comment at the end doesn't make your own argument legitimate.
 
dixon76710 said:
Queer Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
Queer Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation
Queer Nation Manifesto
http://www.sterneck.net/gender/queer-manifesto/index.php
Click to expand...

Ok I can't tell if you're trying to make a point, it appears from these three links that queer may have ended up in the same category as n***** (Which is a stupid category on it's own principle). Ok for homosexuals to use but not ok for others, is that what you were trying to say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top