Young Conservative DESTROYS gay rights fascists

[Coloradomtnman]

Probably for the same reason you do.

What was that? You didn't know you were dominating the definition of a word? What the fuck did you think you were doing?

Those who support equal rights for all, to include same-sex marriage, aren't arguing about the definition of a word, but actual equality. Have you heard arguments to change the definition of marriage or have you heard arguments NOT to change the definition of marriage? Conservatives use the "Don't change the definition of marriage" argument. Those who want equality just argue for equality.

Excuse me?

Many people, a vast majority of the planet, views marriage as a religious rite. The people who are advocating for same sex marraige want to redefine it as a government sanctioned relationship. They is even a concerted movement to sue churches to force them to perform them.

Maybe you should stop thinking you know what you are talking about and actually open your eyes.

So what if 99.9999999% of the world population views marriage as a religious rite? Does that mean that atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers can't get married?

The people who are advocating same sex marriage just want equality under the Law. I tell you what: you want to keep your dictionary with its traditional definition of marriage, and when you talk about marriage you can tell those listening that you personally define it as between a man and a woman, and we'll just change the Law so that it treats all people equally. You can keep your definition. And your conspiracy theories.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm an agnostic. No where in the Constitution is there a Right to force citizens to live by another's religion or traditions. And different under the Law is not equal under the Law. One segment of society doesn't hold dominion over the way a word is defined. Especially when there is no practical reason to deny two homosexuals to do the same thing as two heterosexuals. It has no real world effect on anyone else for gay people to get married. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is you are incorrect.
The US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....
That does not mean freedom FROM religion. Rather it is freedom OF religion.
Our traditions are part of the distinct American culture. Now you have the right to do as you please, so as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others or do harm to another. However, you do not get to use your rights to squash the rights of another just because you feel uncomfortable.
For example, how far does your side think it can take this anti Christian crusade before Christians start fighting back....Uh oh. You're too late. It's started already.

Are you actually arguing that Christians can force US citizens to live by Christian beliefs? Is that what you think the First Amendment states? Are you claiming that I, as an agnostic, am not free from religion?

Please, explain how same-sex marriage infringes on your rights or harms you.

About 79% of Americans identify as Christians. About 16% identify as atheist/agnostic/no faith. Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. So, by fight back do you mean oppress, further, another minority? It is not you Christians with your powerful political special interest groups (Google Christian lobbying groups to get an idea of who and how many), who are the largest majority in this nation, who get to act like powerless little victims when we fight back. It is you who attempt to oppress others and force them to live by your religious beliefs.

No, you are arguing that gays can force people to live by their beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those who support equal rights for all, to include same-sex marriage, aren't arguing about the definition of a word, but actual equality. Have you heard arguments to change the definition of marriage or have you heard arguments NOT to change the definition of marriage? Conservatives use the "Don't change the definition of marriage" argument. Those who want equality just argue for equality.

Excuse me?

Many people, a vast majority of the planet, views marriage as a religious rite. The people who are advocating for same sex marraige want to redefine it as a government sanctioned relationship. They is even a concerted movement to sue churches to force them to perform them.

Maybe you should stop thinking you know what you are talking about and actually open your eyes.

So what if 99.9999999% of the world population views marriage as a religious rite? Does that mean that atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers can't get married?

The people who are advocating same sex marriage just want equality under the Law. I tell you what: you want to keep your dictionary with its traditional definition of marriage, and when you talk about marriage you can tell those listening that you personally define it as between a man and a woman, and we'll just change the Law so that it treats all people equally. You can keep your definition. And your conspiracy theories.

Did I say that? What I said is that you are arguing against your position. Since I didn't actually articulate my position, you can't actually attack me on the basis of what I believe, all you can do is attack me on the basis of what you think I believe.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why do you keep arguing against your position? Is it because you are an idiot that doesn't think things through?

The ad hominem doesn't strengthen your position. Address the rest of the arguments if you would like to discuss the topic.

That was not an ad hominen, that was a question, have you really thought about what the words you are sating actually mean? If no segment of society holds dominion over the definition of a word then the people demanding same sex marraige have no more claim to the word than anyone else. If, on the other hand, you think your side has a better demand than the other side, you are arguing that you still have no right to demand that the word fit your definition.

Sorry if you can't actually follow that, it comes from never being taught to think critically in school. You should take up the challenge of teaching yourself, it is a useful talent.

Are you trying to be dishonest with me or just yourself? Look up above and honestly tell me that you didn't use an ad hominem when you asked me if I was too much of an idiot to think things through.

I don't give one shit about your fuckin' definition of a word. I care about equal rights. If you can't understand that not allowing every person to find happiness in their own way so long as it doesn't infringe on your happiness; if you can't see that what you are attempting to do is codify your religious beliefs into Law, if you can't see that you discriminate against gay people, that you have a prejudice, then it isn't me who needs to learn to think critically.

I'm through "discussing" anything with you since you resort to insults instead of having a real discussion.

 

[Flopper]

I'm amused that he thinks gays will lose despite it being the homophobes who keep losing at every turn

Don't they realize now The military has openly gay people who serve and many states have gay marriages. the federal government recognizes gay marriage, time is sure not on the side of the rightwing fundamentalist lunatics living among us

Facts they prefer to ignore

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where do these people come from?....Fascism and Marxism are the two primary forms of Socialism! Yes, SOCIALISM is a RIGHT WING FUNDAMENTAL.... Someone save us from abject stupidity!

Vigilante, listen up and shut up because you are sounding like an ignoramus. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts and narrative.

You are looking foolish here. Hitler killed homosexuals, he killed communists, he killed socialists, and he would have welcomed you because you are obviously a foolish person.

Hitler also killed American, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and sundry other Patriotic and right thinking people. Who did Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot etc. kill? And you call me an ignoramus!

Comes from the Pogo stick, PaintMyShack, and Jake the Flake school of Progressive thinking! This gets easier with each utterance from these "people"!

Can't answer the bolded above, so you run around in circles waving your little hands in the air. So predictable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We see Vigilante poorly attempt to enact Alinsky's Twelfth Rule.

"Ah, yes. Alinsky's RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The fact is this: Vigilante is far right reactionary wing nut who thinks his opinion substitutes for narrative and facts.

Then refute me, and the others on here that agree with the stance I take! Instead, you personally attack, and only get back more than you utter! I point out what you do, and you still can't refute it...how pathetic are you, and your positions?

Son, don't project your inadequacy on me.

You made a claim without any evidence, had it jammed metaphorically up your butt, then you want people to refute with facts your OP that was never substantiated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bigotry and homophobia are characteristics of the uneducated and ignorant.

Homofascism is the bigotry of the ignorant and/or dishonest. And they use terms like homophobia to quash any dissent or discussion.

What a silly statement, a whine without substance.

Show us how marriage in any way or fashion limits your civil or religious liberties.

 

[Vigilante]

We see Vigilante poorly attempt to enact Alinsky's Twelfth Rule.

"Ah, yes. Alinsky's RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The fact is this: Vigilante is far right reactionary wing nut who thinks his opinion substitutes for narrative and facts.

Then refute me, and the others on here that agree with the stance I take! Instead, you personally attack, and only get back more than you utter! I point out what you do, and you still can't refute it...how pathetic are you, and your positions?

Son, don't project your inadequacy on me.

You made a claim without any evidence, had it jammed metaphorically up your butt, then you want people to refute with facts your OP that was never substantiated.

Of course it was, because you ,and your comrades haven't been able to make any kind of logical reply to our statements. you now go off on one of your Alinsky rants. We see it, know your plays to confuse and obfuscate the OP's remarks. Child, this conversation is above your pay grade!

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante, listen up and shut up because you are sounding like an ignoramus. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts and narrative.

You are looking foolish here. Hitler killed homosexuals, he killed communists, he killed socialists, and he would have welcomed you because you are obviously a foolish person.

Hitler also killed American, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and sundry other Patriotic and right thinking people. Who did Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot etc. kill? And you call me an ignoramus!

Comes from the Pogo stick, PaintMyShack, and Jake the Flake school of Progressive thinking! This gets easier with each utterance from these "people"!

Can't answer the bolded above, so you run around in circles waving your little hands in the air. So predictable.

I answered you idiotic remark, with posting some of the other people he killed! What don't you understand, is your IQ really below room temperature?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then refute me, and the others on here that agree with the stance I take! Instead, you personally attack, and only get back more than you utter! I point out what you do, and you still can't refute it...how pathetic are you, and your positions?

Son, don't project your inadequacy on me.

You made a claim without any evidence, had it jammed metaphorically up your butt, then you want people to refute with facts your OP that was never substantiated.

Of course it was, because you ,and your comrades haven't been able to make any kind of logical reply to our statements. you now go off on one of your Alinsky rants. We see it, know your plays to confuse and obfuscate the OP's remarks. Child, this conversation is above your pay grade!

No one has to refute your nonsense until you do more than state an OP and try distract that you cannot answer the opposition's exposure of your nonsense. You have to give evidence and you have not. Until you do, you are fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hitler also killed American, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and sundry other Patriotic and right thinking people. Who did Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot etc. kill? And you call me an ignoramus!

Comes from the Pogo stick, PaintMyShack, and Jake the Flake school of Progressive thinking! This gets easier with each utterance from these "people"!

Can't answer the bolded above, so you run around in circles waving your little hands in the air. So predictable.

I answered you idiotic remark, with posting some of the other people he killed! What don't you understand, is your IQ really below room temperature?

Dear, your opinion is not fact or narrative. It is simply what you believe. Your posting did not address the fact that you call Hitler a socialist yet he killed socialists and communists and homosexuals.

You can't get around that.

 

[Vigilante]

Can't answer the bolded above, so you run around in circles waving your little hands in the air. So predictable.

I answered you idiotic remark, with posting some of the other people he killed! What don't you understand, is your IQ really below room temperature?

Dear, your opinion is not fact or narrative. It is simply what you believe. Your posting did not address the fact that you call Hitler a socialist yet he killed socialists and communists and homosexuals.

You can't get around that.

You are a complete and total ass!

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) ...are you a Ph.D? just wondering!

HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

 

[HenryBHough]

You may, and rightly so, despise his point but you must concede he was a convincing community organizer who knew how to get his point across. But then once he had done that and was in power he turned prophet and foretold the coming of The New Messiah.....by acting it out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ad hominem doesn't strengthen your position. Address the rest of the arguments if you would like to discuss the topic.

That was not an ad hominen, that was a question, have you really thought about what the words you are sating actually mean? If no segment of society holds dominion over the definition of a word then the people demanding same sex marraige have no more claim to the word than anyone else. If, on the other hand, you think your side has a better demand than the other side, you are arguing that you still have no right to demand that the word fit your definition.

Sorry if you can't actually follow that, it comes from never being taught to think critically in school. You should take up the challenge of teaching yourself, it is a useful talent.

Are you trying to be dishonest with me or just yourself? Look up above and honestly tell me that you didn't use an ad hominem when you asked me if I was too much of an idiot to think things through.

I don't give one shit about your fuckin' definition of a word. I care about equal rights. If you can't understand that not allowing every person to find happiness in their own way so long as it doesn't infringe on your happiness; if you can't see that what you are attempting to do is codify your religious beliefs into Law, if you can't see that you discriminate against gay people, that you have a prejudice, then it isn't me who needs to learn to think critically.

I'm through "discussing" anything with you since you resort to insults instead of having a real discussion.

Let me explain the facts to you, an ad hominen is when I reject your argument on the basis of an irrelevant fact about you. For example, If I argued that your being an agnostic renders you unable to comment on anything having to do with Obamacare, that would be an ad hominen.

What I did was point out that you are actually making an argument that directly contradicts the point you were trying to make. That was a legitimate attack on your argument, not you. I then through in a gratuitous insult that, frankly, turned out to be a complement because you are a fucking moron.

See how it works, idiot? By attacking you I am manipulating you, and forcing you to declare yourself so stupid that you cannot follow a conversation. I want to thank you for being stupid enough to let me force you into an untenable position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm amused that he thinks gays will lose despite it being the homophobes who keep losing at every turn

Don't they realize now The military has openly gay people who serve and many states have gay marriages. the federal government recognizes gay marriage, time is sure not on the side of the rightwing fundamentalist lunatics living among us

Facts they prefer to ignore

Like all the people ignoring the actual law, and declaring it evil because it makes it easier to pretend it is about gays?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't answer the bolded above, so you run around in circles waving your little hands in the air. So predictable.

I answered you idiotic remark, with posting some of the other people he killed! What don't you understand, is your IQ really below room temperature?

Dear, your opinion is not fact or narrative. It is simply what you believe. Your posting did not address the fact that you call Hitler a socialist yet he killed socialists and communists and homosexuals.

You can't get around that.

Stalin killed Russians and communists, does that mean he was an American Democrat?

 

[Truthbetold]

Where Im comfused is didn't gays always have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else? Where is the discrimination?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Homo male HIV threat is greater than drunk driving. I guess the drunk drivers agenda will castigate opponents of drunk driving as drunk-drive-a-phobes.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Where Im comfused is didn't gays always have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else? Where is the discrimination?

They still qualify for that privilege. Just like everyone. But they want special privileges disguised as rights.