Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So marriage is now something capable of having its own thought process? Since, and I quote, "Marriage doesn't care..." How can marriage "not care" when it's a concept and not something capable of thinking?
Ask the poster who said that the earth didn't care if people thought that it was flat, and then get back to Harrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
Right, the earth has always been spherical. The earth didn't care whether we thought it was flat, spherical, icosahedral, whatever. But we thought it was flat. And then some new info came to light that changed our understanding.
Harrier is not a "neo-con" whatever that is - Harrier is a conservative with libertarian leanings.
In truth, Harrier is a neo-con who doesn't know what "libertarian" means.
Quote:
So are you, or you say, and we really shouldn't disagree so strongly.
I am telling the truth though... big difference.
Quote:
When you quit acting like a liberal - then maybe we can talk.
I am not, I am acting like a well infromed adult without political leanings clouding my judgement. The fact that you think that means liberal shows your "neo-con-ness".
Quote:
Harrier defined troll the way that liberals use it.
I Defined it in the correct manner, the way informed adults use it.
When has government violence been used to uphold a law stating that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman"?
Stop deflecting, and answer the simple question, please.
Any time they deny the same tax benefits that straight people get. If a gay married couple refuses to pay more than the comparable straight couple, they will be threatened with jail, if they resist arrest, they will be beaten or killed.
Putting someone in a cage is violence.
Same where there are laws against gay adoption, if they ignore the law and they adopt anyway, violence will be at the very least threatened against them, and ultimately used if they don't obey.
Any time they deny the same tax benefits that straight people get. If a gay married couple refuses to pay more than the comparable straight couple, they will be threatened with jail, if they resist arrest, they will be beaten or killed.
Putting someone in a cage is violence.
LOL!
How can a gay married couple be discriminated via taxes if the state doesn't acknowledge gay marriage?
They aren't married(either by the fiction that some states have either chosen or had foisted upon them, or in the literal sense of the word).
You are the one who said that government violence cannot be used to enforce morality when Harrier cited homosexual marriage as immoral.
In doing so, you essentially claimed that government violence has been used to uphold marriage laws.
When asked to support that claim, you came up with your tax story - and failed miserably.
I think Harrier is going to have to move to Uganda, it seems to be the only nation where his political views and their laws seem to mesh.
Naw, Uganda would not allow homosexual "marriage" at all.
Harrier will give his life to defend the right of a state to choose to allow homosexual "marriage".
He would not support the decision, but he does grant any state the right to make their own laws concerning such matters.
His problem is with the unelected men and women in black robes imposing tyranny from the bench against the clear will of most of the several states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Harrier's ideal is for government to get completely out of the marriage business, something which Harrier believes that Uganda would not support.
Oh, so if a state simply doesn't acknowledge the first amendment, you don't have a right to free speech.
Can you name a state that does such a thing?
Nope?
FAIL.
You said that government violence cannot be used to enforce morality when Harrier cited homosexual marriage as immoral.
Harrier asked you to state when government violence has ever been used to enforce a law stating that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" and you couldn't do it.
Instead you made up a ridiculous tax discrimination scenario that even a 1st grader could see makes no sense because there is no way that a gay couple can be married in a state where such a union is not endorsed by the state.
Really, just give up, because you embarrass yourself with every post, and make yourself silly by responding line by line.
Logic escapes you, but you don't have to make it so glaringly apparent.
Thanks for highlighting YOUR fail, of course no state does this... because it is absurd. The premise you used is absurd, so I applied it to the first amendment to show you how STUPID your claim was.
Quote:
You said that government violence cannot be used to enforce morality when Harrier cited homosexual marriage as immoral.
Wrong. GO BACK AND READ.
I said it DIRECTLY in response to this:
Quote:
Homosexuals intentionally choose to deprive children of a mother and father purely to selfishly force society to accept their fetish lifestyle as "normal".
In doing so they willfully choose to harm children.
You are a bigot if you strongly dislike anyone who stands up for basic human morality.
You cited homosexual PARENTING as immoral. God, you are ignorant to your own claims, absolutely amazing.
Quote:
Harrier asked you to state when government violence has ever been used to enforce a law stating that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" and you couldn't do it.
I did it, quite clearly. You just don't understand basic concepts.
Quote:
Instead you made up a ridiculous tax discrimination scenario that even a 1st grader could see makes no sense because there is no way that a gay couple can be married in a state where such a union is not endorsed by the state.
I already completely debunked this rediculous claim too... again you either can't read or don't understand the words you read. (which makes sense since you don't use words by their definition.)
Quote:
Really, just give up, because you embarrass yourself with every post, and make yourself silly by responding line by line.
Responding line by line is simply being more precise. Everyone in this thread is laughing at you and applauding me... that is not embarrassing.
Quote:
Logic escapes you, but you don't have to make it so glaringly apparent.
No it doesn't. According to EVERY POSTER IN THIS THREAD, it is apparent that I am using logic to THRASH your silly opinions.
Go ahead, keep serving up your slow, limp-wristed pitches, and I will keep knocking them out of the park and being applauded by ALL the spectators.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
