Why gay marriage is wrong!

[Nosmo King]

Could someone dance us back to the OP and discuss their views on marriage equality?

 

[Skylar]

Could someone dance us back to the OP and discuss their views on marriage equality?

Sure. Gay marriage opponents are in a pickle. Most are motivated by religion or anti-gay bigotry or both. And you can't argue that in court. Thus they're left with half assed second tier arguments that have an absymal record in court.

Failing in 44 of 46 cases. Some have awkwardly tried to argue that this is only become of 'activist' judges. But the weight of consensus falls far, far too heavily for it to be an errant judge with a mission. The anti-gay mariage legal arguments simply sucking is a far more likely explanation.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not sure that I know what happened to this thread, mainly, I guess, because I put Bipart on ignore months ago, because he is a whinny kid who lives in his mother's basement and derails threads with his trolling. Come on, guys, consider who you are arguing with here!

You put me on ignore because you're coward and a moron who regularly gets shot out of the saddle.

No, many put you on ignore because you are in fact ignorant – as well as being hateful and consistently wrong.

That's hilarious coming from someone who is as wrong as often as you.

Do you ever offer any rebuttal other that personal attacks and irrelevant remarks?

 

[Flopper]

When South Carolina seeded from the Union and joined the Confederacy, ... [sic]

Uh... South Carolina was the Confederacy when it seceded from the Union. It didn't 'join' anything.

And FWIW: that the US did not recognize the Confederacy is irrelevant.

Much as your refusal to recognize the laws of nature which govern human behavior, neither alters the existence of those laws, nor the benefits of adherence, or the consequences of failing to do such.

Of course it's relevant that other countries recognize a nation. You can proclaim that the land you live on is an independent state but that status only exist in your mind.

Although slavery, economics, and other factors may be the underlining reasons for session and formation of the confederacy, the war was fought to gain recognition that the CSA was an independent nation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And they've been going to school, going to college, graduating, getting a job, finding a partner, adopting children, paying taxes, voting, and just plain living their lives just as you have.

Except you don't have to do it in secret for fear of not getting a job or losing a job or being ostracized by a society and marketplace

Deflection. This is about gay marriage, giving them validation and government perks. It's not about any of these things

I guess that you have a point. This is about your efforts to deny the same government perks to other law abiding citizens that you enjoy.

I oppose all government marriage, Sparky, try to keep up.

And that's still defelection either way. it has nothing to do with the points in the Mad Hatters post that I quoted

Good luck with your efforts to abolish all marraige. This is one of the reasons that the Tea Party is so interesting. Their goals are so surreal.... maybe I should join. I am opposed to having to stand in line for anything. All lines should be abolished, by law.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....now you are reduced to stomping your feet.

You are supporting states that rebelled from the United States in order to protect their legal right to own slaves.

And you are also a homophobic bigot.

Not a mere coincidence.

They seceded - something they have every right to do. Their reasons are immaterial. The bottom line is that Lincoln made war on fellow Americans and slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.

The right to secede is throughly debatable. As the constitution has no provisions for secession. With any alteration of US State count requiring a majority vote of existing states. You disagree. Why should I care?

Hmmmm, wrong. Where does the Constitution say that ANY ALTERATION of the US state count requires a vote? It only discusses admitting states to the Union, not states leaving the Union.

And even following your assumption, the attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war. Just as the US military invaded Mexico and conquered huge swaths, so too could the US invade and conquer the 'confederacy'.

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Rebellion or invasion, either is as legit as the other.

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion? Don't you belong to the gang that whines about the invasion of Iraq because it was supposedly unprovoked? You just threw all your claims of moral superiority in

...You're trolling, right? You don't honestly side with the Confederacy over the United States of America, do you?

You are the perfect storm of the STUPID/WEAK/COWARDLY trinity.

Yes, I do side with the Confederacy - the innocent party.

Only bootlicking scumbags admire Lincoln the mass murdering tyrant.

The 'innocent party'- which tried to secede from the United States in order to protect their rights to own slaves.

The 'innocent party'- which started the war by bombarding federal troops.

Such innocents....

 

[Syriusly]

Then you would have to admit that Lincoln was nothing more than some tyrant bent on expanding his empire - no better than Napoleon or Hitler.

Or the United States when they invaded Mexico. With both Grant and Lee fighting side by side against the Mexicans in the invasion of Mexico City.

Robert E. Lee would be a Nazi in your bizarre fulfillment of Godwin's Law.

Is that your argument? If so, wow!

Invasion is a legit excuse for invasion?

A military attack against the United States is a legit excuse for invasion. If the South couldn't hold their own territory, they probably shouldn't have attacked the United States by firing on Ft. Sumter.

Just sayin'.

Ft Sumter wasn't part of the United STates, moron. It was South Carolina territory.

It's pointless to argue with morons like you because I keep explaining the same points over and over and over. You just proceed based on all your bogus premises as if no one had already exploded them.

In short, you're a clueless moron who isn't capable of committing logic.

Ft. Sumter was a federal installation. Apparently, not only do you openly support a country that fought for slavery, but you also openly support a "country" that attacked the U.S. Military.

Sadly, for your feelings, the US Federal Government was not relevant to South Carolina, at the time; which was part and parcel of the Confederate States of America.

If you had any kinship with the history of the Confederate States and its sibling nation; The United States, you'd know that South Carolina was the FIRST of the States to leave the Union.


But, in fairness... mouthy British Socialists aren't expected to know much of anything, except their needs and how bad they NEED to have those needs met, by any means.

It's pointless to argue with these vegetables. They behave as if they haven't read a thing you have posted. I am thinking about putting them all on ignore.

The only difference between you putting people on ignore and not putting people on ignore is that you will no longer even pretend to be reading what people have said.

Please put us all on ignore- it will just make it more fun to mock your posts.

 

[Syriusly]

Not so.

So...

Fort Sumter was the property of the United States. The state ceded the land to the United States government in 1836.

Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

The stupidness is sucking in all the intelligence within 50 miles.

Well, you should stop then.

. Soon there will be nothing but incoherent gibberish posted to this forum, if we haven't reached that point already.

That describes every single post you make on USMB.

 

[Syriusly]

And they've been going to school, going to college, graduating, getting a job, finding a partner, adopting children, paying taxes, voting, and just plain living their lives just as you have.

Except you don't have to do it in secret for fear of not getting a job or losing a job or being ostracized by a society and marketplace

Deflection. This is about gay marriage, giving them validation and government perks. It's not about any of these things

Marriage is about many things- including validation and government perks.

Most couples- gay or straight- do not marry for government perks. My wife and I didn't- and neither did our gay friends. Any 'government perks' we will enjoy will likely not be until one of us retires.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So...


Yeaaah... and seceding probably didn't change that. Most folks who divorce live up to all the old promises. Happens everyday, somewhere.

You can't 'secede' land that isn't yours. One would think this was obvious. But clearly the concept went right over your head.

The stupidness is sucking in all the intelligence within 50 miles.

Well, you should stop then.

. Soon there will be nothing but incoherent gibberish posted to this forum, if we haven't reached that point already.

That describes every single post you make on USMB.

thank you

 

[westwall]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

not purely, but partly -- yes

 

[Seawytch]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

 

[kaz]

And that's still defelection either way. it has nothing to do with the points in the Mad Hatters post that I quoted

Good luck with your efforts to abolish all marraige.

Noted, in the future I won't have positions that you don't consider realistic, thanks for the 411 on that, Dopey

This is one of the reasons that the Tea Party is so interesting. Their goals are so surreal.... maybe I should join. I am opposed to having to stand in line for anything. All lines should be abolished, by law.

Um, Tea Party? You stoned off your ass? What do they have to do with anything?

 

[kaz]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

And more!

 

[Seawytch]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

And more!

Really? What "more" reasons do gays marry than straights?

 

[Skylar]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

And more!

Really? What "more" reasons do gays marry than straights?

And does it involve Jazz Hands?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

devolution of a thread

 

[bodecea]

Who does it harm? For that matter why is the government a part of marriage anyway.

handouts.

married people want government handouts

So...gay people want to be married purely for government handouts? Is that what you're saying?

Straight people want to be married purely for government handouts.....except for this guy: