Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

So you voted for Romney to not lead the nation??

No, dimwit, I voted for Obama not to lead the nation.

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

Neither ... it's the guy you wanted to lead the nation.

Strawman

 

[kaz]

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Right, blacks had access to drinking fountains, Grand Wizard, so Jim Crow was fine for you

 

[kaz]

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

The point is that if someone wants to marry no one, they are marrying who they want and they should be able to get marriage perks. Since you are saying government has no say over who you marry. Skylar loves the sound of his own voice, why should he not get marriage perks for that? Why do you get shit from government Skylar and his own voice can't get when you have a "contract" for marriage?

Calling government marriage a "contract" is pretty preposterous, BTW. Government marriage is a government program. It's not defined by the participants and they can't change it, but government can change it without their consent. It's a bastardization of the word "contract." And again why does a "contract" entitle them to anything from government? It's a government program, nothing more

 

[kaz]

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

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

 

[kaz]

Not true. Being gay changes who you can marry for everyone.

Really? Name one

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

So you could marry a man since you're straight but if you were gay you couldn't marry a man? What law says that? I'm pretty sure you actually can't marry a man even though you're straight, but if you can show evidence to the contrary I'll consider that

Try again.

He said I can marry you because I'm straight, but I couldn't if I were gay. He's an idiot, and a clown

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Here's the part you can't understand, please pay close attention....

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. How is a gay man marrying a woman and not the man he's in love with, pursing happiness? More to the point, why should the government be allowed to cock block him (pun intended) from pursuing his happiness by marrying (which is a fundamental right) the man he loves?

Go......

The first part you get wrong is that marriage is not a fundamental right. You also are mistaken in thinking that marriage exists to help people "pursue happiness." It exists to facilitate the reproduction of healthy well adjusted men and women. Happiness is merely a byproduct of that process.

And there ya have it folks ... the end of the road for dumbfuckbri.

Sorry, dumbfuck, marriage is absolutely a fundamental right. One which has been affirmed several times by the very government tasked with securing our rights. Our rights do not cease becoming rights just because an abject imbecile like you doesn't recognize them as such.

And again , marriage does not exist to facilitate procreation. And again, this is evidentiary by the fact that millions procreate without getting married while millions of other marry without procreating.

But let me take this opportunity to thank you.... thank you for what has been thee dumbest post in this entire thread and which proves my claim you are, indeed, an abject imbecile.

 

[kaz]

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

How do you feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine?

I don't think it's any of YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO.

My God you liberal automaton, you don't grasp a question, do you? Either that or you do, this is two in a row bripat blew holed in your argument and your response was duh, dar, you don't get it.

If you're right, why do you have to, let's go with "play" dumb? You should encourage questions

Incorrect. You fail to understand my answer... because you are an authoritarian that can't grasp liberty.

You didn't answer it. And because I think gays should go to the legislature and not the courts I'm an "authoritarian?" Do you actually believe your own crap?

 

[kaz]

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.

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Here's the part you can't understand, please pay close attention....

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. How is a gay man marrying a woman and not the man he's in love with, pursing happiness? More to the point, why should the government be allowed to cock block him (pun intended) from pursuing his happiness by marrying (which is a fundamental right) the man he loves?

Go......

The first part you get wrong is that marriage is not a fundamental right. You also are mistaken in thinking that marriage exists to help people "pursue happiness." It exists to facilitate the reproduction of healthy well adjusted men and women. Happiness is merely a byproduct of that process.

And there ya have it folks ... the end of the road for dumbfuckbri.

Sorry, dumbfuck, marriage is absolutely a fundamental right. One which has been affirmed several times by the very government tasked with securing our rights. Our rights do not cease becoming rights just because an abject imbecile like you doesn't recognize them as such.

And again , marriage does not exist to facilitate procreation. And again, this is evidentiary by the fact that millions procreate without getting married while millions of other marry without procreating.

But let me take this opportunity to thank you.... thank you for what has been thee dumbest post in this entire thread and which proves my claim you are, indeed, an abject imbecile.

Concluding for the hordes of followers of your every word, are you? How do you get your head through doorways?

 

[Faun]

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.

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

 

[Faun]

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.

That isn't the way said they are the same. Again, Google what an analogy is

I already posted what an analogy is and why his analogy failed due to his failure to recognize context. You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

 

[Faun]

Really? Name one

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

So you could marry a man since you're straight but if you were gay you couldn't marry a man? What law says that? I'm pretty sure you actually can't marry a man even though you're straight, but if you can show evidence to the contrary I'll consider that

Try again.

He said I can marry you because I'm straight, but I couldn't if I were gay. He's an idiot, and a clown

Not at all what I said. I said you could marry him if you were straight or gay.

 

[kaz]

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.

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

You mean he's not stupid enough to see your argument

 

[kaz]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

 

[kaz]

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

So you could marry a man since you're straight but if you were gay you couldn't marry a man? What law says that? I'm pretty sure you actually can't marry a man even though you're straight, but if you can show evidence to the contrary I'll consider that

Try again.

He said I can marry you because I'm straight, but I couldn't if I were gay. He's an idiot, and a clown

Not at all what I said. I said you could marry him if you were straight or gay.

ha ha?

 

[Faun]

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Right, blacks had access to drinking fountains, Grand Wizard, so Jim Crow was fine for you

No, of course not. But it does benefit my argument in that segregation was deemed unconstitutional and that equal but separate was not acceptable. To that regard, it's also unacceptable to limit gays to civil unions, as many offer as a compromise in lieu of gay marriage, because equal but separate insufficiently addresses equality under the law.

 

[kaz]

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Right, blacks had access to drinking fountains, Grand Wizard, so Jim Crow was fine for you

No, of course not. But it does benefit my argument in that segregation was deemed unconstitutional and that equal but separate was not acceptable. To that regard, it's also unacceptable to limit gays to civil unions, as many offer as a compromise in lieu of gay marriage, because equal but separate insufficiently addresses equality under the law.

You have a constantly shifting standard

 

[Faun]

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

The point is that if someone wants to marry no one, they are marrying who they want and they should be able to get marriage perks. Since you are saying government has no say over who you marry. Skylar loves the sound of his own voice, why should he not get marriage perks for that? Why do you get shit from government Skylar and his own voice can't get when you have a "contract" for marriage?

Calling government marriage a "contract" is pretty preposterous, BTW. Government marriage is a government program. It's not defined by the participants and they can't change it, but government can change it without their consent. It's a bastardization of the word "contract." And again why does a "contract" entitle them to anything from government? It's a government program, nothing more

Holyfuckingshit!

Not getting married is getting married in your alternate universe?? Is not going to the movies going to the movies? Is not driving a car driving a car?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

Wrong again, that's nor my argument. Remember? You're too stupid to understand my argument. And now we see that stems from your absolutely mind-fucking belief that marriage is not a fundamental right.

Hey, recall your argument that marriage is an unalienable right and then your other argument that marriage is not an unalienable right?

That's how most of your arguments go.

 

[Faun]

You can keep sucking his cock like you are if that's what makes you happy, but at least wipe your chin.

OMG, after the endless 100 page cluster fuck with you, syriusly, skylar, seawytch, bodedica you would say this? I mean that's even clown for a clown, bro

Really? "OMG??"

You really are the wife in your marriage. Hell, you sound like a 4 year old girl watching the power puff girls.

And your, I know you are but what am I," retort also expresses your 4 year old mentality.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Yes, it was an analogy, and he told you how he was using that analogy. You picked something that wasn't how he was using the analogy, so what you said was a truism. Sadly multiple words are in this conversation you don't know and aren't going to look up

This is the point where you are free to engage in wholesale verbal abuse. It's a total waste of time to continue arguing the point with him. He's like a corpse that insists it isn't dead even though it doesn't have a pulse and its body is at room temperature.