How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

sedan said:
There wasn't a point to miss -- I asked a question.

And I'm glad you agree that society benefits when more gay men are in long-term committed relationships.
Click to expand...
Marriage doesn't change that. All it does is make it more easy to adopt kids, in other words, recruit into their deviant behavior.
 
poet said:
You trying to speak for me again, or more evidence of you being "reading-comprehension-challenged"???

Uh, some clerics and scribes hated some gays..and so they wrote it into scripture. There is no evidence that God spoke to anyone, physically, witnessed and corroborated.
So you just lied again...the last person and least likely to be speaking for God.

Your dad is a queer...and I would mop the floor up with him, as I would you. And dare both of you to get up. How's your hooker mom?
Click to expand...

So now the Torah isn't the Word of God? Is that really your position, queer boy?
 
DamnYankee said:
So now the Torah isn't the Word of God? Is that really your position, queer boy?
Click to expand...

The Torah may or may not be the word of God. It was written by fallible men, who may or may not have been "divinely" inspired. I told you.....I'm gay, you're daddy is queer.
And your racist and bigoted view point of calling a 59 year old man, "a boy", is not lost on anyone. Your mamais a bigger boy than me.
 
poet said:
The Torah may or may not be the word of God. It was written by fallible men, who may or may not have been "divinely" inspired. I told you.....I'm gay, you're daddy is queer.
And your racist and bigoted view point of calling a 59 year old man, "a boy", is not lost on anyone. Your mamais a bigger boy than me.
Click to expand...


The Torah was dictated to man directly from God.

What is a "mamais", Mr. self-proclaimed literary expert?

You called me a girl, giving me license to call you a queer boy. That shouldn't be lost on anyone, queer boy.
 
DamnYankee said:
The Torah was dictated to man directly from God.

What is a "mamais", Mr. self-proclaimed literary expert?

You called me a girl, giving me license to call you a queer boy. That shouldn't be lost on anyone, queer boy.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you have proof of that? Were you an "eyewitness"? I rather think not. That's hearsay, and inadmissible in a court of law.

And that was a typo...I meant to say " Your mama is a bigger boy than I".

You have no license to call anyone anything. You're engaged in a criminal act...slander. I've described you accurately. You whine, bitch and moan, just like a girl, so I call you girl. I haven't been a boy in 42 years. And I'm not queer.....I'm gay. The fact that you can't seem to distinguish between the proper, politically-correct word and the pejorative is not my problem. Your daddy would be the only "queer boy, outside of yourself.
 
Don Quixote said:
why limit the number of consenting adults for marriage to two, why not two or more consenting adults
Click to expand...

why not? Again, I don't see a reason, so long as all participating are adults and fully informed, that we should maintain some religious or arbitrary limit on how they choose to live.
 
Unfortunetely Damocles, people constructing arbitrary reasons to deny things to others is pretty much how society functions, somebody wants to do something, and somebody else comes up with a reason why they can't
 
Disillusioned said:
Unfortunetely Damocles, people constructing arbitrary reasons to deny things to others is pretty much how society functions, somebody wants to do something, and somebody else comes up with a reason why they can't
Click to expand...

And it is my belief (in the condensed version) that government should stand in the way of such action. The purpose of government should be to protect individual rights, not to create a list of religious or arbitrary rules that only create victims. Such a use of power is force, and should not be part of what government is...

As long as people are fully cognizant and able to make informed consent there is little I would bar from the individual, or would support the government from barring from the individual. The government should make laws protecting people from being victimized, not nonsense arbitrary rules in an attempt at social engineering.
 
Damocles said:
why not? Again, I don't see a reason, so long as all participating are adults and fully informed, that we should maintain some religious or arbitrary limit on how they choose to live.
Click to expand...

ah, my wife is entitled to health care from my employer?.....great!.....that would be the forty two lined up on the left.........
 
The family is the smallest unit of the fascist state. Through the family, church and all the institutions we hold dear, we are taught to appease dysfunctional alpha abusers. That's how they like us.
 
Disillusioned said:
Unfortunetely Damocles, people constructing arbitrary reasons to deny things to others is pretty much how society functions, somebody wants to do something, and somebody else comes up with a reason why they can't
Click to expand...

Marriage is available to anyone who chooses to enter a marriage with someone of the opposite sex. It is made available because they have the potential of procreation. Some people CHOOSE not to enter such relationships. No one denies them.
 
Disillusioned said:
Unfortunetely Damocles, people constructing arbitrary reasons to deny things to others is pretty much how society functions, somebody wants to do something, and somebody else comes up with a reason why they can't
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I really want to be the field goal kicker for the Minnesota Vikings, but I can only kick the ball 10 yards. What a bunch of bigots.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah, my wife is entitled to health care from my employer?.....great!.....that would be the forty two lined up on the left.........
Click to expand...

Silliness. Can you prove they wouldn't be married to others and still receive that same health care, or that providers wouldn't change policy to account for more members of a "family", or.. .

Well, I think you'll get the picture some day. The reality is the market would change to reflect the reality, to pretend that they are too retarded to figure it out, but then say they need to have less stupid regulation is a bipolar argument that really leads to circular logic.

First, not many people want to live that way, I mean how much do you like to share your wife around? Second, you should assume that the companies that provide that insurance are smart enough to allow the market to come up with an affordable solution or stop arguing that they are smart enough to come up with other solutions.
 
Damocles said:
Silliness. Can you prove they wouldn't be married to others and still receive that same health care, or that providers wouldn't change policy to account for more members of a "family", or.. .

Well, I think you'll get the picture some day. The reality is the market would change to reflect the reality, to pretend that they are too retarded to figure it out, but then say they need to have less stupid regulation is a bipolar argument that really leads to circular logic.

First, not many people want to live that way, I mean how much do you like to share your wife around? Second, you should assume that the companies that provide that insurance are smart enough to allow the market to come up with an affordable solution or stop arguing that they are smart enough to come up with other solutions.
Click to expand...

my post was made in response the claim that multipartner marriages had no impact upon others......the fact that, if such were legal, employers could be forced to provide health care for 42 legal spouses should have been obvious....
 
poet said:
Really? Do you have proof of that? Were you an "eyewitness"? I rather think not. That's hearsay, and inadmissible in a court of law.

And that was a typo...I meant to say " Your mama is a bigger boy than I".

You have no license to call anyone anything. You're engaged in a criminal act...slander. I've described you accurately. You whine, bitch and moan, just like a girl, so I call you girl. I haven't been a boy in 42 years. And I'm not queer.....I'm gay. The fact that you can't seem to distinguish between the proper, politically-correct word and the pejorative is not my problem. Your daddy would be the only "queer boy, outside of yourself.
Click to expand...
The Torah was dictated by God, word-for-word, directly to Moses, silly queer boy.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
my post was made in response the claim that multipartner marriages had no impact upon others......the fact that, if such were legal, employers could be forced to provide health care for 42 legal spouses should have been obvious....
Click to expand...

Again, the market itself would change to reflect the change in reality. They would pay more for their health insurance, simple as that.

My post, in answer to yours, was pointing out the bipolar reasoning that companies that provide insurance are smart enough to figure out cost effective ways to provide insurance but not smart enough to handle large families is a bipolar argument that leads to circular reasoning.

Either start arguing that the government should run the companies, or continue arguing that the companies, and the market, would adjust to a different reality. You can't have it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top