Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

 

[DOTR]

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

Is that what you were speaking of? I thought it was gays wanting a marriage license. In fact I know it was. I asked you why those men never saw anything about gay marriage in the laws they passed and ruled on.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.

I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home. Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.

"And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"

If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".

You really do have trouble reading and understanding, don't you? You claim homosexuality is an abomination. Why? Because two men having sex is an abomination to you. It is the sex in the privacy of their own home that is the reason behind the opposition to two men marrying.

Why would I say that gays are excluded from marriage because of marriage? Which is what you claim I was saying.

 

[DOTR]

DOTR, I see you deleted a post. But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy. Yes, show me.

You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Please point out where I have been a hypocrite?

As for the "abomination", that is only accurate in your imaginings of what I believe and what I want. You have been quite inventive there.

Now this is funny. I was going to make a comment earlier about the hypocrisy. Ann Coulter once said "when you have lost the morality to see any sin...only hypocrisy remains as a sin and the search for hypocrisy the last crusade"

How right she was.

 

[DOTR]

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.

I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home. Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.

"And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"

If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".

You really do have trouble reading and understanding, don't you? You claim homosexuality is an abomination. Why? Because two men having sex is an abomination to you. It is the sex in the privacy of their own home that is the reason behind the opposition to two men marrying.

Why would I say that gays are excluded from marriage because of marriage? Which is what you claim I was saying.

You wouldnt. You despise legal marriage. But be that as it may what you did was invoke "privacy of their own home" as a defense of gay marriage licenses. How ridiculous.

 

[DOTR]

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

 

[DOTR]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

That took some twisting didnt it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

Let's try and clarify what you seem unable to understand. I have not been hypocritical about 14 men marrying.


In post #401 you asked “Explain to me, you bigot, why the 14 guys I work with in my unit cannot marry each other and just pay one insurance premium?”

In post #404 I replied “They can. Well, they can form 7 couples and marry. But, lest you forget, marriage is about being in love with the other person.”



Then in post #431 you said, in part “And I dont demand you answer my question. As I said I know I will get no answer. I will get a lie or a lot of words misdirecting. But never an answer. My point was to expose your bigotry and illogic. Which I did.
Lots of shucking and jiving there for you to keep your bigotry against polyamourous unions of 14+ men hidden.”

To which I replied in post #434 “I have absolutely no problem with 14 men getting married. As long as they love each other, let them marry.”



In the first answer I used the word “can”. Which shows I was talking about what is currently legal.

In the second answer, I simply stated that I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other.



If your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you would see the difference between stating what is currently legal and what I don’t have a problem with.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

That took some twisting didnt it?

None at all. The first comment was answering why 14 men can't marry. I answered based on current law. My next comment on it was about whether I care if 14 men marry or not. It was not based on current law.

 

[WinterBorn]

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[DOTR]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

 

[DOTR]

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

 

[DOTR]

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

 

[DOTR]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

That took some twisting didnt it?

None at all. The first comment was answering why 14 men can't marry. I answered based on current law. My next comment on it was about whether I care if 14 men marry or not. It was not based on current law.

Ahhhh thats what I wanted...current law! I had no idea current law illogically limited marriage to just two men rather than 14 men. Thanks.
Wonder why they do that?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.

Because I expect the gov't to treat all citizens the same? Because I want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives? Those are conservative and libertarian traits. Not liberal. In fact, liberals are the ones who want the gov't to "fix" things so they are the way THEY want them. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Conservative and libertarianism are two entirely different things. That you conflate two opposing ideologies shows you share nothing with either.

Ididn't say they were the same thing. I simply said they both want the gov't to treat all its citizens the same and that they both want the gov't to not be involved in every facet of our lives. And they do, in fact, share those two traits.

It would be helpful if you stuck with quoting what I actually saying and stop lying to invent what you want me to say.

 

[DOTR]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter? Okey dokey.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

I have not lied. You insist that western values disgust me. Nothing I have said even hits a such a thing.

I have said numerous times that I do not believe that the gov't should be involved in marriage at all. But if they are, then the SCOTUS made the correct ruling. I have not lied. You simply cannot comprehend what you read.

I did not "decide" that 14 men cannot marry. The law is currently setup for only two people. You asked why 14 men can't marry. I answered, based on current laws. Then you decided that was proof that a polyamorous man was a bigot against polyamory. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. My two comments on the 14 men marrying were in different contexts. It is not legal, but I don't care of they do. Can you grasp the difference?

So lets set the record straight and stop going round and round. You, a supporter of the government forcing states to marry gays to each other...oppose legal marriage. You, who oppose marriage, also believe 14 men at a jobsite should be able to marry and all pay one insurance premium.
You see no questions marks up there do you? I state facts. if you disagree now is the time to speak up.
I dont see how you can however so lets continue. The point I wanted to make was simply that...those who want the destruction of traditional marriage support not only the licensing of two men...but also 14 men...or 30 men...or 17 men and three women. There is no logical stopping point. Nobody should be fooled by the lies being told in support of the travesty of men pretending to marry men.
Winterborn is just an old guy on the computer with a government check. it isnt him doing it. He simply parrots the elites.
But never be in doubt what the intent is.

If we are setting the record straight, let's start with the fact that I do not oppose marriage. You invented that tidbit, like you have invented other items.

I am opposed to gov't involvement in marriage. But if it IS going to be involved, I expect it to treat all citizens the same and allow them to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I said I have no problem with 14 men marrying each other, as long as they love each other. That is simply my belief that what others do, that harms no one, has no business being illegal.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of lying, and then post that I am living off a gov't check and that I parrot some elites. When you accuse someone of lying, and then lie in the same post, that is called hypocrisy. And you have lied plenty.

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.