NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

I'm not talking about anyone else's post, I'm talking about yours. Where does the text of that part of the constitution say anything in regards to this conversation. And don't say part one because it says the word "tax" because that was taxes on business. The "marriage benefit" is on income tax which the federal government didn't have the right to collect until the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913.

Actually, we agree on this. I do not (and have consistently stated) think the federal government has any business being involved with marriage issues. As I've repeatedly stated, I think DOMA is unconstitutional.

 

[McGinn77]

Wow, go overboard much?

Do you see a difference between offering benefits to a situation, while allowing other situations without the same benefit, and killing children? I do.

Nothing I said spoke of righteousness, screwing people, or Christianity. In fact, I've gone out of my way to express that the morality involved is separate from all arguments I've made.

Try again, but put some thought into your hatred first.

Hatred, who exactly do I hate?

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

 

[This_person]

Hatred, who exactly do I hate?

I'm sorry, was your previous post meant to be constructive? if so, you failed miserably.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

No matter what Yoda told you anger does not always lead to hate.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

No matter what Yoda told you anger does not always lead to hate.

I don't get angry much - I find it a childish emotion based in conceit and self-centeredness. It's too bad you couldn't contain your emotional outburst and try and stick to the subject. Sooner or later you're likely to hit upon an argument that has a miniscule amount of truth or accuracy.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

I have, you choose to ignore it just as I choose to ignor you.

PS no matter where you think they come from all emotions are part of the human experience, if you attemp to ignor any of them you will fail but you'll also miss out on a lot.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

I have, you choose to ignore it just as I choose to ignor you.

PS no matter where you think they come from all emotions are part of the human experience, if you attemp to ignor any of them you will fail but you'll also miss out on a lot.

I didn't ignore your points, I refuted them handily. Big difference.

And, I didn't say I ignore my emotions - everyone who feels gets angry. I just choose when to let myself be that self-indulgent.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

By my score card all your points were refuted and no matter what was said by me or anyone else you repeated the same tax argument. Enjoy.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

By my score card all your points were refuted and no matter what was said by me or anyone else you repeated the same tax argument. Enjoy.

You never demonstrated the equality you claim exists. I did demonstrate the equality does not exist.

Please go to dictionary.com and look up "delusional".

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Wait I said equality didn't exist...do you remember the argument?

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

PS your anger is showing now. Taking pot shots, tisk, tisk.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

By my score card all your points were refuted and no matter what was said by me or anyone else you repeated the same tax argument. Enjoy.

You never demonstrated the equality you claim exists. I did demonstrate the equality does not exist.

Please go to dictionary.com and look up "delusional".

So the part about all men being created equal, you just want to ignores that?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

Wait I said equality didn't exist...do you remember the argument?

Your argument has been that it is discriminatory, and that equal treatment is appropriate.

Neither of those is true, but those were your basic arguments.

Now you're saying there is no equality between the relationships? Well, then, we agree.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

PS your anger is showing now. Taking pot shots, tisk, tisk.

No anger, no pot shots.

Accuracy.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

No I'm saying there is no LEGAL equality for same sex couples. Please state your point more clearly.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



So the part about all men being created equal, you just want to ignores that?

As I previously answered, I believe all men were created equal in the eyes of the law.

That's why there's no sexual orientation clause to getting married. You just can't call chicken prime rib and have it be so.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

The only thing I would be guilty of being delusional of is that 1 I could make you see reason and 2 that it even mattered. You're part of a dying minority.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

No I'm saying there is no LEGAL equality for same sex couples. Please state your point more clearly.

Which, again, I agree with. And, the reason for that is that same-sex couples do not have an equal legal footing to gain that equality. Things have to be equal to have equality.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Well you can just bend anything to say what you want it to say can't you? That's ok the reasonable people know what my post actually means.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted

The only thing I would be guilty of being delusional of is that 1 I could make you see reason and 2 that it even mattered. You're part of a dying minority.

My argument is unbiased, unemotional, and filled with calm, reasoned fact.

Your argument is that non-equal entities somehow should be treated equally.

If you read the concepts 2A was trying to explain to you about "good" vs. "moral", telling me I'm in the minority is not an argument against my point.