Is Polygamy The Next Gay Marriage?

[JakeStarkey]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you are wrong as usual.

Homosexuality as always existed in humans as it does most species.

Pop, hint, bud: don't do men if you don't want.

 

[Pop23]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

No, you lied

So there ya silly goose

Gay males may, have and will marry gay females from the beginning of time until man parishes from the face of this planet

Now go play with the Legos until bedtime

k?

 

[Pop23]

Nope, you are wrong as usual.

Homosexuality as always existed in humans as it does most species.

Pop, hint, bud: don't do men if you don't want.

You are one buzzard manchick, link where I said it hasn't existed throughout history

Many weird things have

Point please

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you change the goal posts and say boys and girls can marry each other.

You said gays can marry each other in 50 states; you lied.

OK, you are burnt toast.

Next?

 

[Pop23]

Now you change the goal posts and say boys and girls can marry each other.

You said gays can marry each other in 50 states; you lied.

OK, you are burnt toast.

Next?

No, Tis you who changed the goalpost dipstick.

Read your own post, then own up to your own post

You waz owned btw

 

[Rikurzhen]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995

Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995

Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.

The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.

How well did that logic work?


>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

North Korea is the end product of raging socialism---------dictatorial socialism.

Maybe in your dream world, but not in reality.

The reality is the USSR, China and North Korea are/were not Socialist or Communist at all. China certainly isn't, the US is more socialist than China at present, under Mao it was nothing other than Mao's toy, it had not -ism other than Maoism and to even claim that it was an -ism is a little bit rich, it was just a mess. North Korea started life as some kind of left wing state, but was taken over by the Kims who made it into Kimism or something like that which has nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with left wing, Socialism, Communism or anything like this.

Anyone who knows anything about these places would know this stuff. Those who live in a dream world where all their "information" comes from people who want to mislead, and those being misled want to be misled, will come up with this kind of carp.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

North Korea is the end product of raging socialism---------dictatorial socialism.

Maybe in your dream world, but not in reality.

The reality is the USSR, China and North Korea are/were not Socialist or Communist at all. China certainly isn't, the US is more socialist than China at present, under Mao it was nothing other than Mao's toy, it had not -ism other than Maoism and to even claim that it was an -ism is a little bit rich, it was just a mess. North Korea started life as some kind of left wing state, but was taken over by the Kims who made it into Kimism or something like that which has nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with left wing, Socialism, Communism or anything like this.

Anyone who knows anything about these places would know this stuff. Those who live in a dream world where all their "information" comes from people who want to mislead, and those being misled want to be misled, will come up with this kind of carp.

Did you really just claim that the US is more socialistic than China? BAHAHAHAHA

No, really. You are making that claim?

China is a socialist market economy.

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is decidedly a free market economy, albeit a regulated one.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995

Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.

The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.

How well did that logic work?

You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.

Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

North Korea is the end product of raging socialism---------dictatorial socialism.

Maybe in your dream world, but not in reality.

The reality is the USSR, China and North Korea are/were not Socialist or Communist at all. China certainly isn't, the US is more socialist than China at present, under Mao it was nothing other than Mao's toy, it had not -ism other than Maoism and to even claim that it was an -ism is a little bit rich, it was just a mess. North Korea started life as some kind of left wing state, but was taken over by the Kims who made it into Kimism or something like that which has nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with left wing, Socialism, Communism or anything like this.

Anyone who knows anything about these places would know this stuff. Those who live in a dream world where all their "information" comes from people who want to mislead, and those being misled want to be misled, will come up with this kind of carp.

You guys are like cockroaches which survive nuclear blasts. You never die and neither does your "true communism has never been tried before" apologias.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you really just claim that the US is more socialistic than China? BAHAHAHAHA

No, really. You are making that claim?

China is a socialist market economy.

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The US is decidedly a free market economy, albeit a regulated one.

Yes, I've lived in China, and the US, and I know what I'm talking about. It's not just about a label that you can put on China, it's about understand how things work. China is run away capitalism. The state role in a lot of capitalism is merely CORRUPTION, it says China is in the early stages of Socialism, bull, they're in the last stages of leaving Socialism.

"Despite the official designation of "socialism", analysts often describe the Chinese economy as a form of state capitalism."

This is from your source.

"One analysis carried out by the Global Studies Association at the DePaul University reports that the Chinese economy does not constitute a form of socialism when "socialism" is defined variously as a planned economy where production for use has replaced production for profit; when it is defined as a system where the working-class is the dominant class (controls the surplus value produced by the economy); and when it is defined as self-management or workplace democracy. The study also found that as of 2006 capitalism was not the dominant mode of organization in the Chinese economy, suggesting that China is still a partially pre-capitalist agrarian system with almost 50% of its population engaged in agricultural work."

Does not constitute a form of socialism..... hmmm.

Capitalism isn't the predominate mode of organization because 50% are in AGRICULTURE. Now, the last state run farms and business disappeared a few years ago. So it's basically people living almost subsistence farming levels, with them selling a little, almost certainly on the black market, and they pay their bribes to the police.

"Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system."

Again, even the Chinese call it "state capitalist system".

"Other Marxist analyses point out that the current Chinese system contains capitalist commodity relations in production, dis-empowers the working class, and has contributed to a sharp increase in social inequality while growing the size and political power of a small capitalist class."

Socialism huh?

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT YOU SOURCED? I doubt it very much.

Basically China is becoming part run away capitalism with not much to top the big companies, the govt could, but the govt gets massive bribes from them, so why would they bother to allow more competition and stop this? The other is state controlled capitalism, for example:
China National Petroleum Corporation

China National Petroleum Corporation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

CNPC chairman starts courting private investors Petro Global News

"CNPC chairman starts courting private investors"

Even then they are opening up to private investment, this is probably due to the massive debt China is building up and doesn't want to see it all go massively wrong.

PetroChina is also state owned, but also listed on two stock markets. Hmm, hardly Socialism, just State Capitalism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You guys are like cockroaches which survive nuclear blasts. You never die and neither does your "true communism has never been tried before" apologias.

Thanks for the laugh.

I have no doubt you laughed, just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean you don't laugh.

Funny thing is I backed up everything I said, funny thing is you didn't back up anything, you have no real argument, just stuff that is almost meaningless.

You know why I can back up what I say? Because I actually know what I'm talking about. You want to debate this properly, you can, you want to be ignorant of reality and laugh when things don't meet you limited view of the world, fine, you do that, I don't care.

By the way, I don't need to know you're laughing at things, it doesn't help me in any way, shape or form.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You guys are like cockroaches which survive nuclear blasts. You never die and neither does your "true communism has never been tried before" apologias.

Thanks for the laugh.

I have no doubt you laughed, just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean you don't laugh.

Funny thing is I backed up everything I said, funny thing is you didn't back up anything, you have no real argument, just stuff that is almost meaningless.

You know why I can back up what I say? Because I actually know what I'm talking about. You want to debate this properly, you can, you want to be ignorant of reality and laugh when things don't meet you limited view of the world, fine, you do that, I don't care.

By the way, I don't need to know you're laughing at things, it doesn't help me in any way, shape or form.

I see that you're sticking true to form. You apparently have a peculiar definition for "backing up what you say" because for the rest of us simply making assertions which affirm your argument doesn't count as "backing up what you say."

I'm happy to leave the "true Communism has never been tried" & "true Nazism has never been tried" and "The moon landings were fake" positions unchallenged. You go right ahead and keep being you, comrade.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see that you're sticking true to form. You apparently have a peculiar definition for "backing up what you say" because for the rest of us simply making assertions which affirm your argument doesn't count as "backing up what you say."

I'm happy to leave the "true Communism has never been tried" & "true Nazism has never been tried" and "The moon landings were fake" positions unchallenged. You go right ahead and keep being you, comrade.

So you're not even going to challenge, then what the feck is the point of being on a debate forum? Just so you can tell people you're laughing? Intellectual? No, moronic? More than likely.

So how was the USSR Communist? How is North Korea Socialist? How is China Communist? Come on, you laugh at it, but I bet you don't even know what these terms mean.

communism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo Education

com·mu·nism (k

m

y

-n

z

m) KEY

NOUN:

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
   1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
   2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Collins English Dictionary Always Free Online

1. advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. (usually capital) a political movement based upon the writings of Marx that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production See alsoMarxism, Marxism-Leninism, socialism
4. (usually capital) a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union
5. (often capital) (mainly US) any leftist political activity or thought, esp when considered to be subversive
6. communal living; communalism

Communism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Communism (from Latincommunis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of themeans of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order. The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninistinterpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the states which claimed to follow this ideology and their enemies."

So the first point here is, there are plenty of definitions of what Communism is.

"In modern usage, the word "communism" is still often used to refer to the policies of past and present self-declared socialist governments typically comprising single-party states wherein the country's vanguard party is governing the state exclusively, operating centrally planned economies and a state ownership of the means of production. A significant sector of the modern communist movement alleges that these states never made an attempt to transition to a communist society, while others even argue that they never achieved a legitimate socialism, often arguing that they established instead state capitalism. "

Communism comes from the word "common", "communal"

"In the schema of historical materialism and dialectical materialism (the application of Hegelian dialectic to historical materialism), communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments or class divisions."

So, a Communist society would have no government. Did the USSR and does China have government? Clearly they did/do.

Class division? Yes, certainly the politicians were at the top and pounded down on those below. In China the leadership have their own farms with food that is produced without killer chemicals, unlike the other people. Clearly China has a class system, based on, like the USA, MONEY. People love to show their money off, love to be better than those at the bottom of the pile, etc etc.

Were women treated differently in the USSR and China? Yes.

Were people free from oppression? Clearly no. China is oppressing various groups.

I'm struggling to find anything that suggests either of these two are Communist.

The problem you have is that the US redefined Communism to be "whatever the hell the USSR is" and you just accept this, without any real understand of what Communism is.

I bet you don't actually know much about the workings of the USSR, China under Mao or now, and North Korea, so.......

You keep laughing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.

Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.

No connection huh? Other than black people were banned from marrying people because of how they were born and the same for gay people.

The connection is human rights, civil liberties and the govt staying out of your life.

 

[bripat9643]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

You're renowned for being a senile old commie who regularly embarrasses himself in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

North Korea is the end product of raging socialism---------dictatorial socialism.

Maybe in your dream world, but not in reality.

The reality is the USSR, China and North Korea are/were not Socialist or Communist at all. China certainly isn't, the US is more socialist than China at present, under Mao it was nothing other than Mao's toy, it had not -ism other than Maoism and to even claim that it was an -ism is a little bit rich, it was just a mess. North Korea started life as some kind of left wing state, but was taken over by the Kims who made it into Kimism or something like that which has nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with left wing, Socialism, Communism or anything like this.

Anyone who knows anything about these places would know this stuff. Those who live in a dream world where all their "information" comes from people who want to mislead, and those being misled want to be misled, will come up with this kind of carp.

You guys are like cockroaches which survive nuclear blasts. You never die and neither does your "true communism has never been tried before" apologias.

Thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, I really get tired of that.

 

[Pop23]

Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.

You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.

You lie, you cry: just the way it is.

Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995

Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.

The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.

How well did that logic work?

You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.

Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.

Depraved, oh the irony.