Supreme Court to decide whether same-sex marriage is a right

Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
THE_GOVERNOR said:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!
Click to expand...

Dang govvy...you have not had that much to say in a while.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
If this was supposed to be witty or intelligent it failed on both counts.

If you have no cogent argument, try giving up and staying silent like MR did. It will be far less humiliating for you.
Click to expand...
MR didn't give up or go silent, he got bored with your idiocy.

Kind of funny, out of all the people who have proven you wrong in this thread, its me living in your head.
Meanwhile I spent all weekend enjoying the beautiful weather.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
MR didn't give up or go silent, he got bored with your idiocy.

Kind of funny, out of all the people who have proven you wrong in this thread, its me living in your head.
Meanwhile I spent all weekend enjoying the beautiful weather.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed a beautiful family. Congratulations on a good weekend.

But, other than saying polygamy when I meant poly-amory, no one has proven me wrong on a single thing. You gave me a list of what you thought, and I proved each of your points inaccurate.

You gave up when you were going nowhere but down. It's ok, you're wrong so it's to be expected.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I enjoyed a beautiful family. Congratulations on a good weekend.

But, other than saying polygamy when I meant poly-amory, no one has proven me wrong on a single thing. You gave me a list of what you thought, and I proved each of your points inaccurate.

You gave up when you were going nowhere but down. It's ok, you're wrong so it's to be expected.
Click to expand...
Meh, you can claim victory all you want. I, and apparently the rest of the people in this thread, know different
 
B

BigBlue

New Member
This_person said:
I enjoyed a beautiful family. Congratulations on a good weekend.

But, other than saying polygamy when I meant poly-amory, no one has proven me wrong on a single thing. You gave me a list of what you thought, and I proved each of your points inaccurate.

You gave up when you were going nowhere but down. It's ok, you're wrong so it's to be expected.
Click to expand...

Very happy you had a good weekend ,but as others have stated you have been proven wrong , you chose not to accept it .You want people to respond to you just so you can change course again ,enough.While you are obviously intelligent you are blatantly ignorant on the subject by not accepting the facts as others doing a better job than I have pointed out to you you still equate same sex marriage and incest and that by any definition is ignorant.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
Meh, you can claim victory all you want. I, and apparently the rest of the people in this thread, know different
Click to expand...
I ask you again, on what did you prove me wrong? Your last list was not valid. Please feel free to try again.

As I've said, there is no victory to claim on this. There is no winning this argument. It's like winning 2+2=4; it's not a win, it just is what it is.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
BigBlue said:
Very happy you had a good weekend ,but as others have stated you have been proven wrong , you chose not to accept it .You want people to respond to you just so you can change course again ,enough.While you are obviously intelligent you are blatantly ignorant on the subject by not accepting the facts as others doing a better job than I have pointed out to you you still equate same sex marriage and incest and that by any definition is ignorant.
Click to expand...
When you can differentiate between same-sex "marriage", poly-amorous relationships, and adult consensual incestuous relationships you might be able to say you've proven me wrong. No one has yet even attempted to do that, let alone actually done it.

Feel free to use moral differences, because that will prove you believe laws should be based on morals, and therefore those to whom morals are the objection to same-sex "marriage' have as valid an argument as you have regarding poly-amorous relationships and adult consensual incest. Or, you can simply say that discriminating against them is okay because most people think it's okay. By doing that, you are admitting that the courts are wrong every time they've overturned laws regarding defining marriage as between one man and one woman when those laws were passed by the people's representatives and/or state constitutional amendments - not to mention you rob yourself of the "discrimination" argument because you're saying discrimination against people based on who they love is okay with you.

Since you have been unable to differentiate in any way, let alone the ways I described above, I will assume you are still unable.
 
B

BigBlue

New Member
The fact you sit in wait by your computer and live for the next fight tells me you are closer to this argument then you let on .
 
B

BigBlue

New Member
This_person said:
When you can differentiate between same-sex "marriage", poly-amorous relationships, and adult consensual incestuous relationships you might be able to say you've proven me wrong. No one has yet even attempted to do that, let alone actually done it..
Click to expand...

You are "the" only one that thinks they are all the same the problem is you not I or others .
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
That you change what I say to make it seem inaccurate, when what I originally said was accurate - yes, that's a problem. Not my problem, but it is a problem.
Click to expand...
no, the problem is that you think 2+2=potato is a valid argument. HEll, it is when compared to what you have actually been arguing
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
no, the problem is that you think 2+2=potato is a valid argument. HEll, it is when compared to what you have actually been arguing
Click to expand...
Actually, I said 2+2=4. I didn't discuss potatoes at all. :shrug: I can't help your lack of reading what I write.

If you can find flaw with my argument, then tell me what it is. This whole potato thing is just another pointless distraction.

My points:
  • From a purely secular point of view, there is no difference in the concept of people loving who they want to love. Whether that's six other people, their sister, or whatever consenting adult it is, those are all valid things and should be treated as such. Anyone who says that one type of relationship among consenting adults can be discriminated against is wrong.
  • The state does not discriminate against any relationship by officially recognizing one but not another. This is true for many reasons - one being that anyone is allowed to enter into that which has historically been defined as "marriage', provided they meet the requirements, and another being that this is consistent with the way we handle other things like tax breaks for solar energy or charitable donations or mortgage insurance - perks for things that we as a society have deemed to add value to our society.
  • Because of the overall decline in the value towards what constitutes "marriage", as defined, the government should simply stop recognizing any relationship.
  • Morals shouldn't determine laws.
  • There are both tax advantages and disadvantages for marriage. Any tax lawyer or even the most basic of Bing searches will inform even the mildly-interested of this fact.
You likely disagree with the first point, because you are okay discriminating against the poly-amorous or those in an adult consensual incestuous relationship. You're free to disagree, but I'd love to hear why you think discrimination against people who are born to love who they choose to love is ok.

You've said you disagree with the tax point, but I've shown you link after link that shows you are wrong to disagree with that. Take that one up with the IRS, they're the ones who execute those laws with which you find argument.

I'd love to read what you think is actually wrong with my points.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Actually, I said 2+2=4. I didn't discuss potatoes at all. :shrug: I can't help your lack of reading what I write.

If you can find flaw with my argument, then tell me what it is. This whole potato thing is just another pointless distraction.

My points:
  • From a purely secular point of view, there is no difference in the concept of people loving who they want to love. Whether that's six other people, their sister, or whatever consenting adult it is, those are all valid things and should be treated as such. Anyone who says that one type of relationship among consenting adults can be discriminated against is wrong.
  • The state does not discriminate against any relationship by officially recognizing one but not another. This is true for many reasons - one being that anyone is allowed to enter into that which has historically been defined as "marriage', provided they meet the requirements, and another being that this is consistent with the way we handle other things like tax breaks for solar energy or charitable donations or mortgage insurance - perks for things that we as a society have deemed to add value to our society.
  • Because of the overall decline in the value towards what constitutes "marriage", as defined, the government should simply stop recognizing any relationship.
  • Morals shouldn't determine laws.
  • There are both tax advantages and disadvantages for marriage. Any tax lawyer or even the most basic of Bing searches will inform even the mildly-interested of this fact.
You likely disagree with the first point, because you are okay discriminating against the poly-amorous or those in an adult consensual incestuous relationship. You're free to disagree, but I'd love to hear why you think discrimination against people who are born to love who they choose to love is ok.

You've said you disagree with the tax point, but I've shown you link after link that shows you are wrong to disagree with that. Take that one up with the IRS, they're the ones who execute those laws with which you find argument.

I'd love to read what you think is actually wrong with my points.
Click to expand...
we are talking about marriage, not people loving each other or living together....

again you insist on debating potato when the subject is 2+2

that is what is wrong with your points. Well that and the fact that you have changed them numerous times as they have been discredited.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
we are talking about marriage, not people loving each other or living together....

again you insist on debating potato when the subject is 2+2

that is what is wrong with your points. Well that and the fact that you have changed them numerous times as they have been discredited.
Click to expand...
Please show me a time I said something in contradiction to any of the above. I believe I've been very consistent, but you and BB both say I've not. Which post was it I said something different than the above?

But, if we're not talking about what I described above, but rather "marriage", please explain why the definition of what constitutes "marriage" should not include poly-amorous or adult-consensual incestuous relationships since you clearly believe the definition should be broadened from what it's been throughout the entirety of the United States history, from ratification of the Constitution on. Also, please explain why we, the people, should not be allowed to define the term "marriage" in a legal sense.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
we are talking about marriage, not people loving each other or living together....

again you insist on debating potato when the subject is 2+2

that is what is wrong with your points. Well that and the fact that you have changed them numerous times as they have been discredited.
Click to expand...
Again, though, I'll note that you do not find my arguments invalid or inaccurate, you simply want to define the topic to something else. This of course does not mean I've been proven wrong (because I haven't), just that you want to talk about something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top