My conservative perspective on gay rights

Damocles said:
Which doesn't change that your "solution" does nothing at all to promote or create what you said it was designed to promote. In fact, it creates a scenario where quite the opposite happens very often. Ignoring what happens right before your eyes doesn't make for a good argument.
Click to expand...

????Nope. LIKE I SAID, the idea is to get the children with THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS, not one of their parents and a gay lover. Gay couples with a child requires separating the child from one of those parents.
 
dixon76710 said:
Not near as interesting as you taking the word "fulfill" to mean "add to" in order to manufacture a contradiction that you think makes a point. And YOU said "abrahamic faiths"
Click to expand...
Follow the quote line backwards one more dixon. And I notice that like like most christians you dodged the point and moved on. However fufill in this context would add to the law, the new testament is filled with new ideas and teachings, pulling the ass out of the pit on the sabbath springs to mind, as well as many others while never "abolishing the law" which is again a direct quote from the bible, Jesus certainly doesn't go around tossing Jewish laws out the window in his life, otherwise there wouldn't have needed to be all the trouble with his trial.
 
dixon76710 said:
????Nope. LIKE I SAID, the idea is to get the children with THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS, not one of their parents and a gay lover. Gay couples with a child requires separating the child from one of those parents.
Click to expand...
Tell me dixon, how do you reconcile married, childless heterosexual couples. They're married but don't want kids, but they're still married, but the idea of marriage was to end up with a kid, but they don't have one, but they're straight, but they don't have a kid. Wow, sounds like they're doing the gay bit without being gay.

Oh except nobody complains about them calling it marriage.
 
Imperator Augustus said:
when i was 18, my specific support was behind civil unions. - But not "marriage." I was one of those that defended the very WORD marriage, even though it's a word that has constantly evolved for thousands of years.

Also, my belief was rooted in an "I don't care mindset".. rather ambivalent, not an issue that kept me awake at night.

But then something happened.

I grew up. And realized how retarded not allowing gay marriage is. And it morphed from me being marginally for civil unions, to realizing that those that don't support the happiness of others - happiness that has zero effect on society at large (and many could argue improve society as a whole with respects to being more tolerant to others), are proles. Also I think many republicans against gay marriage are just jealous that they can't be in a gay marriage themselves. So they want to ban it for everyone. Studies have shown the more homophobic one is, the more they experience homosexual attraction. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Grind, stop being such a fag.
 
Telling you the truth about something isn't "bashing". You should be taking offense at the folks who are willing to lie to you, for the sake of being "sensitive".
 
DamnYankee said:
Telling you the truth about something isn't "bashing". You should be taking offense at the folks who are willing to lie to you, for the sake of being "sensitive".
Click to expand...

You don't tell the truth, though.

You have even admitted that you lie on here, and that you come here to troll. Don't try to pretend that you represent any "truth," about anything.
 
Onceler said:
You don't tell the truth, though.

You have even admitted that you lie on here, and that you come here to troll. Don't try to pretend that you represent any "truth," about anything.
Click to expand...

I lie as cops lie, when dealing with a suspect in order to find the truth. And tormenting liberals like you isn't trolling.
 
DamnYankee said:
I lie as cops lie, when dealing with a suspect in order to find the truth. And tormenting liberals like you isn't trolling.
Click to expand...

You don't like as cops do. You just lie, like someone who doesn't understand what truth is.

I can't remember you tormenting me, ever, in any scenario. Not much has tormented me in life, except the continued dominance of the Patriots in the AFC East.

In the context of the board, you'd have to be fairly clever to even approach something that could be called "tormenting," and you fall way, way short of that.

You're pretty dopey.
 
Onceler said:
You don't like as cops do. You just lie, like someone who doesn't understand what truth is.

I can't remember you tormenting me, ever, in any scenario. Not much has tormented me in life, except the continued dominance of the Patriots in the AFC East.

In the context of the board, you'd have to be fairly clever to even approach something that could be called "tormenting," and you fall way, way short of that.

You're pretty dopey.
Click to expand...

So now you claim that I don't torment you. Before you said I was trolling. Are you lying now or before?

Any time that you care to prove that I have lied outside of the specific area that we both apparently agree on is acceptable, then by all means do it. Otherwise I'll have to consider your earlier statement to be a lie.
 
DamnYankee said:
So now you claim that I don't torment you. Before you said I was trolling. Are you lying now or before?

Any time that you care to prove that I have lied outside of the specific area that we both apparently agree on is acceptable, then by all means do it. Otherwise I'll have to consider your earlier statement to be a lie.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean by how dopey you are. By your logic, every troll torments me. That is not the case. But clearly, you are a troll (as you have admitted).

You sound all upset, btw. *shrug*
 
dixon76710 said:
????Nope. LIKE I SAID, the idea is to get the children with THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS, not one of their parents and a gay lover. Gay couples with a child requires separating the child from one of those parents.
Click to expand...
No, it requires one of them playing at being hetero for a while, trying to fit in. Later they "come out" leave, break up the family, take the kid and move in with their lover.

What you are saying creates the very "problem" you want to avoid. Imagine if they were honest from the beginning, married a partner, had no kids... Seems like that would do what you actually wanted far more than ostracizing them so they feel a need to pretend to be normal for a while so they can create the kids that you want to be with their "biological parents"...

Again, if you can't just look at what happens and say, "This isn't working" and try something different, you may as well check into the psych ward now, because you are either criminally stupid and need to protect society from yourself, or you are insane and keep trying to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
 
Onceler said:
This is what I mean by how dopey you are. By your logic, every troll torments me. That is not the case. But clearly, you are a troll (as you have admitted).

You sound all upset, btw. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't see your proof of lying here, just another unfounded accusation that you will also fail to prove. I see a pattern here. *shrug*
 
Disillusioned said:
Follow the quote line backwards one more dixon.
Click to expand...

You claiming "tossed those out the window a while back". not sure of your point. text says fulfill, you for some reason interpret that to mean "add to" when clearly it does not.

Disillusioned said:
And I notice that like like most christians you dodged the point and moved on.
Click to expand...

What point was that. The only one you made was a fabricated contradiction that doesnt exist


Disillusioned said:
However fufill in this context would add to the law,
Click to expand...

Quite OBVIOUSLY in this context it would mean PRECISELY the opposite
 
dixon76710 said:
??? Already addressed it and you had nothing to respond with.
Click to expand...

no you didn't. i actually cited the case language to show you the government had the burden in loving. you claimed loving said the petitioner had the burden. i also showed you lawschool outlines that state the government has the burden in all levels except rational basis.

you're a retard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top