J.D Hayworth: Gay Marriage will lead to Men Marrying Horses

[NYcarbineer]

I just read somewhere that Hayworth wasn't able to get a single endorsement from any AZ teabagger group. So even those people apparently think he's too wacky.

 

[Barb]

Assuming he actually said that, how do you know that gay marriage will NOT lead to bestiality?

How do you know that drinking mothers milk will not lead to alcoholism?!

 

[Zona]

Rachel Maddow is interviewing J.D. Hayworth tonight, should be interesting.

She owned him. All he could say was, we disagree. All she came up with was facts. Indisputable facts. Funny stuff. He looked like a fool and a liar.

 

[gautama]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

I've seen delusional spins and convoluted logic from crazed Obamarrhoids before.....but Obamarrhoidal Ravi must be one of the worst who is still on the loose.

 

[del]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

I've seen delusional spins and convoluted logic from crazed Obamarrhoids before.....but Obamarrhoidal Ravi must be one of the worst who is still on the loose.

neighsayer, eh?

 

[The Rabbi]

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

Here is your proof. Under our current legal system, marriage requires two consenting adults. The horse can't consent, so consequently, a horse cannot marry a human....male or female.

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

 

[gautama]

Rachel Maddow is interviewing J.D. Hayworth tonight, should be interesting.

She owned him. All he could say was, we disagree. All she came up with was facts. Indisputable facts. Funny stuff. He looked like a fool and a liar.

Let's face it, BOTH Maddow and Hayworth (and you, incidentally) are SLIME.

 

[Modbert]

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

I said that over ten pages ago nitwit.

 

[Liability]

Wilbur and Mr. Ed were not just husband and spouse (man and horse?), but their particular variant of bestiality was homosexual.

"Oh hhh hhh Wilbur!"

Kinda gives new meaning to their occasional "ride me" interludes.

 

[Liability]

It's a slippery slope.

Once we start turning our eyes from things ranging from gay marriage to State authorized bestiality --

before you know it we will end up in a situation where --


human adult single males are gonna start wanting to have sexual relationships with human adult single females!

You laugh now... but what's to stop this?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

Here is your proof. Under our current legal system, marriage requires two consenting adults. The horse can't consent, so consequently, a horse cannot marry a human....male or female.

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

Don't lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

Here is your proof. Under our current legal system, marriage requires two consenting adults. The horse can't consent, so consequently, a horse cannot marry a human....male or female.

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

...so, a Priest, a Rabbi, and a Shetland Pony go into a bar...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

Electing one more Republican will lead to the Rabbi marrying Charlie Bass before killing himself because he can't stand being a faggot and a Jew.

Prove that statement wrong.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wilbur and Mr. Ed were not just husband and spouse (man and horse?), but their particular variant of bestiality was homosexual.

"Oh hhh hhh Wilbur!"

Kinda gives new meaning to their occasional "ride me" interludes.

Gives a whole new (disturbing) meaning to 'animal husbandry'

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Another STUPID moron gullible enough to swallow the assumption that JD Hayseed or any other CON$ervaTard would ever under any circumstances quote anything accurately.

When a CON$ervoFascist says something is "ambiguous" you can be certain it is quite specific. The law clearly says intimacy between one person and "another" person of the same sex.

Isn't a bull elephant, a bull and a human man all the same sex? Male? The law seems to suggest that only one needs to be a person. Massachusetts should not try to write a law that specifically gives the right to marry to homosexuals. Why don't they write an amendment that says their Massachusetts citizens must be treated equally under the laws of the Commonwealth like Iowa has?

You have to admire the CON$ervaTard dedication to the dumb act. Even when you highlight and underline the key points they STILL play dumb rather than admit they are wrong.

For your sake I'll spell it out for you, obviously "another" refers to "person" and not a horse, bull or whatever other animals CON$ervoFascists prefer to have sex with.

"another" refers to "of the same sex". If "another of the same sex" is male, then a "person" who is male and has an intimate relationship with a male of unspecified species may be married according to this law.

I repeat, use the Iowa standard that citizens of Iowa have to be treated equally under Iowa laws. The Massachusetts law, apparently, already has this provision in its constitution. Horses are NOT citizens.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hint: 'of the same sex' is an adjective phrase. It refers to 'another (person)', not the other way around.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224"]Amazon.com: English Grammar for Dummies (0785555054035): Geraldine Woods: Books[/ame]

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Hint: 'of the same sex' is an adjective phrase. It refers to 'another (person)', not the other way around.

Amazon.com: English Grammar for Dummies (0785555054035): Geraldine Woods: Books

Then they should have said "another person of the same sex". The species of the sex is unspecified. Massachusetts needs to delete the "intimacy" reference or risk being misunderstood.

 

[uscitizen]

Most horses are not old enough to get married.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hint: 'of the same sex' is an adjective phrase. It refers to 'another (person)', not the other way around.

Amazon.com: English Grammar for Dummies (0785555054035): Geraldine Woods: Books

Then they should have said "another person of the same sex".

They did. They just assumed you'd passed the fifth grade if you were reading it.

The species of the sex is unspecified.

'a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another'

Does 'person' nor refer to a specific species in established legal parlance?

Today's English tip:removing the adjective phrase can help you know what's being referred to

​

Massachusetts needs to delete the "intimacy" reference or risk being misunderstood.

No, they don't. You don't matter anyway. Nobody who can't master middle-school grammar matters when it comes to phrasing legislation. You're a non-entity.

 

[Ravi]

Most horses are not old enough to get married.

Good point.

Which means the "conservatives" being driven into the arms of horses will be fulfilling two of their fantasies at once.