Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

You think it's tax breaks and validation, I think it's children. At least that's the "concept" which I was very clear on in my OP post. Why would society create it for your reason? What does society get from marriage other than perpetuation of the species?

Nope, I don't think that. But thanks again for proving you don't understand.

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

It's not a huge issue for me. Chalk this strawman of yours up to more validation that you have no clue to what you're talking about and can't understand a word I'm saying.

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

Same-sex marriage is not a huge issue for me ... denying people access to their inalienable rights is. I would defend anyone's rights regardless of the issue. Shame you can't fathom that.

Right, same sex isn't a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue to you. More double speak from the clown

 

[Faun]

Who on Earth said a man not getting to play on a woman's basketball team is discrimination?? That's fucking retarded. It would be discrimination if the man wasn't allowed to play on any team because he's a man.

You morons will never get it. Because you can't understand, you'll remain baying at the moon.

Morons like you said it when you claimed the fact that a woman can't marry another woman is discrimination.

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

 

[kaz]

You think it's tax breaks and validation, I think it's children. At least that's the "concept" which I was very clear on in my OP post. Why would society create it for your reason? What does society get from marriage other than perpetuation of the species?

Nope, I don't think that. But thanks again for proving you don't understand.

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

Because it's denying people access to an inalienable right and I don't believe there is valid reason for doing so.

So, clown, more doublespeak. I can't believe you actually picked that avatar, it's like the only self awareness you've ever exhibited.

So it's not important to you, but it's critical that people have an inalienable right that isn't inalienable but it is. Orwell would be proud

The clown you felt was qualified to lead the nation.

Bull, he sucked. He was running against a Marxist who's an empty suited clown. So is the clown in your avatar you or Obama?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a huge issue for me. Chalk this strawman of yours up to more validation that you have no clue to what you're talking about and can't understand a word I'm saying.

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

I think FAUN is in the running for dumbest liberal turd in the forum. He's got the "deer in the headlights" appearance now.

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

 

[Faun]

Nope, I don't think that. But thanks again for proving you don't understand.

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

It's not a huge issue for me. Chalk this strawman of yours up to more validation that you have no clue to what you're talking about and can't understand a word I'm saying.

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

Same-sex marriage is not a huge issue for me ... denying people access to their inalienable rights is. I would defend anyone's rights regardless of the issue. Shame you can't fathom that.

Right, same sex isn't a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue to you. More double speak from the clown

It's ok that you don't understand what I said. No one expects you to.

 

[kaz]

Morons like you said it when you claimed the fact that a woman can't marry another woman is discrimination.

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

A truism to the argument. I'll let you google what that means.

The point is that according to your logic, it's Unconstitutional. As long as women are allowed to play on men's teams, they have the same rights as men and the Constitution, according to you, requires laws to be gender blind

 

[kaz]

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

It's not a huge issue for me. Chalk this strawman of yours up to more validation that you have no clue to what you're talking about and can't understand a word I'm saying.

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

Same-sex marriage is not a huge issue for me ... denying people access to their inalienable rights is. I would defend anyone's rights regardless of the issue. Shame you can't fathom that.

Right, same sex isn't a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue to you. More double speak from the clown

It's ok that you don't understand what I said. No one expects you to.

You do like cartoons, don't you, clown? Next are you going to shoot me with seltzer water?

 

[bripat9643]

Morons like you said it when you claimed the fact that a woman can't marry another woman is discrimination.

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

 

[Faun]

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

I think FAUN is in the running for dumbest liberal turd in the forum. He's got the "deer in the headlights" appearance now.

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

 

[Faun]

It's not a huge issue for me. Chalk this strawman of yours up to more validation that you have no clue to what you're talking about and can't understand a word I'm saying.

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

Same-sex marriage is not a huge issue for me ... denying people access to their inalienable rights is. I would defend anyone's rights regardless of the issue. Shame you can't fathom that.

Right, same sex isn't a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue to you. More double speak from the clown

It's ok that you don't understand what I said. No one expects you to.

You do like cartoons, don't you, clown? Next are you going to shoot me with seltzer water?

Nah, your own posts serve you humiliation more than seltzer ever could.

 

[kaz]

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Not to mention that his argument was the government is required to issue marriage license to butt fuckers and carpet munchers because the Federal government has to be gender blind. So the only schools that matter to that argument are the ones with government funding. The ones he eliminated are the ones that have nothing to do with his argument.

He is a clown, but no one knows that better than him. He's self identifying like the rest of the liberal clowns with clowns on their avatar

 

[bripat9643]

I think FAUN is in the running for dumbest liberal turd in the forum. He's got the "deer in the headlights" appearance now.

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

 

[Faun]

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Not to mention that his argument was the government is required to issue marriage license to butt fuckers and carpet munchers because the Federal government has to be gender blind. So the only schools that matter to that argument are the ones with government funding. The ones he eliminated are the ones that have nothing to do with his argument.

He is a clown, but no one knows that better than him. He's self identifying like the rest of the liberal clowns with clowns on their avatar

I am truly amazed that anyone could be as stubborn in their stupidity as Faun.

 

[Faun]

Nope, I don't think that. But thanks again for proving you don't understand.

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

Because it's denying people access to an inalienable right and I don't believe there is valid reason for doing so.

So, clown, more doublespeak. I can't believe you actually picked that avatar, it's like the only self awareness you've ever exhibited.

So it's not important to you, but it's critical that people have an inalienable right that isn't inalienable but it is. Orwell would be proud

The clown you felt was qualified to lead the nation.

Bull, he sucked. He was running against a Marxist who's an empty suited clown. So is the clown in your avatar you or Obama?

Yet you still wanted him to lead the nation. Make all the fun you want of him; or me for making fun of him, he was the guy you wanted in office.

 

[kaz]

I think FAUN is in the running for dumbest liberal turd in the forum. He's got the "deer in the headlights" appearance now.

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

 

[bripat9643]

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

 

[kaz]

Nah,

Right, hundreds of posts in this thread are for something that doesn't really matter to you

Same-sex marriage is not a huge issue for me ... denying people access to their inalienable rights is. I would defend anyone's rights regardless of the issue. Shame you can't fathom that.

Right, same sex isn't a huge issue for you, it is a huge issue to you. More double speak from the clown

It's ok that you don't understand what I said. No one expects you to.

You do like cartoons, don't you, clown? Next are you going to shoot me with seltzer water?

Nah, your own posts serve you humiliation more than seltzer ever could.

That actually sounded good to you, didn't it? LOL

 

[kaz]

It's not about children, validation or tax breaks. Yet it's a hugely important issue to you. Why?

Because it's denying people access to an inalienable right and I don't believe there is valid reason for doing so.

So, clown, more doublespeak. I can't believe you actually picked that avatar, it's like the only self awareness you've ever exhibited.

So it's not important to you, but it's critical that people have an inalienable right that isn't inalienable but it is. Orwell would be proud

The clown you felt was qualified to lead the nation.

Bull, he sucked. He was running against a Marxist who's an empty suited clown. So is the clown in your avatar you or Obama?

Yet you still wanted him to lead the nation. Make all the fun you want of him; or me for making fun of him, he was the guy you wanted in office.

Strawman. I wanted the Marxist to not lead the nation. I'd do it again, and I hadn't voted Republican since 1988. But Obama crossed the line from running as a Marxist and ruling as one like the Democrats before him. You should learn about voting between two candidates.

So who's the clown in the avatar? You or Obama?

 

[Faun]

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.