Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here's your sign:
Nah...the opposition to gay marraige [advocates for children] are just getting started. You have reached the proverbial "this far and no farther" tipping point. Our sign to your neo-sexual cult's unchecked illegal advances into our democracy and fabric of society looks more like this
No, it means you are stupid. Gay is sick.Gay is satans answer to the true concept of marriage. I am never disappointed in libtards being stupid, it runs in their genes.It is the only correct opinion. Gay marriage is not protected in the constitution as the lying left would like you to believe. Good going judge.The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.
I think you are going to end up being very disappointed.
And I am okay with that.
Being insulted by a bigot just means the truth is making them uncomfortable.
You have been beating that same drum for two years now- and in that time homosexuals in 29 states have gained marriage equality.
And the last 4 states to vote on gay marriage- voted for it.
You have been beating that same drum for two years now- and in that time homosexuals in 29 states have gained marriage equality.
And the last 4 states to vote on gay marriage- voted for it.
Actually it's been about 6 years and the only thing those states have "gained" is the loss of the power of self-rule with respect to behaviors their majorities find repugnant.
How would you deny polygamists today a marriage license Syriusly?
Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.
Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.
Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.
Link or it's a lie.
Answer the question Pop
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?Stupid question.Funny coming from you
I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
Here's your sign:
Selfie?
Still waiting
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
"It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related" to what? That you are wrong about the law? We already know that.
Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.
Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.
Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.
Link or it's a lie.
Answer the question Pop
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?Stupid question.I wonder if Pop can or will ever answer a question?
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
Here's your sign:
Selfie?
Still waiting
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children
You really are slowwwwwww
It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.
Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.
You have been beating that same drum for two years now- and in that time homosexuals in 29 states have gained marriage equality.
And the last 4 states to vote on gay marriage- voted for it.
Actually it's been about 6 years and the only thing those states have "gained" is the loss of the power of self-rule with respect to behaviors their majorities find repugnant.
Link or it's a lie.
Answer the question Pop
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
Selfie?
Still waiting
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
Only one of those couples would have to prove they can't have children
You really are slowwwwwww
It shows the two demographic groups are nowhere near being closely related.
Keep trying, each and every time you show how vastly different the two groups are.
The two demographic groups are exactly as closely related- do try to keep up.
Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.
Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married
Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?
That you believe you are rational reveals your self delusion, Pop.
See, you are a self fulfilling prophecy.
Each and every time you speak out wrongfully, you are going to get tagged, son.
Actually I was correct and you were wrong. As you stated it, there is no such law in WIsconsin. You lied by omission.My claims have never been disproven..Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right
He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.
Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.
Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
Me:
Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).
Nah...the opposition to gay marraige [advocates for children] are just getting started. You have reached the proverbial "this far and no farther" tipping point.
Our sign to your neo-sexual cult's unchecked illegal advances into our democracy and fabric of society looks more like this
Actually I was correct and you were wrong. As you stated it, there is no such law in WIsconsin. You lied by omission.My claims have never been disproven..Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right
He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.
Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.
Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
Me:
Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).
The funny thig is you think the existence of that law proves your point. In fact it does the exact opposite. It eviscerates your entire argument. You are simply too stupid to understand that.
You have been beating that same drum for two years now- and in that time homosexuals in 29 states have gained marriage equality.
And the last 4 states to vote on gay marriage- voted for it.
Actually it's been about 6 years and the only thing those states have "gained" is the loss of the power of self-rule with respect to behaviors their majorities find repugnant.
How would you deny polygamists today a marriage license Syriusly?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is recognizing gay marriage in six more states and extending federal benefits to those couples, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Saturday.
Gay marriage recently became legal in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.
U.S. To Recognize Same-Sex Marriage In 6 New States
Right. You lied by omission. And now cannot understand how your citation of the Wisconsin law refutes your case entirely. Because you are stupid and ignorant. Ignorant because you dont know why they have such a law in the first place. Stupid because you wont bother finding out.Actually I was correct and you were wrong. As you stated it, there is no such law in WIsconsin. You lied by omission.My claims have never been disproven..Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right
He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.
Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.
Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
Me:
Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).
The funny thig is you think the existence of that law proves your point. In fact it does the exact opposite. It eviscerates your entire argument. You are simply too stupid to understand that.
Just don't have the balls to admit you were just wrong....lol
I can repost it as often as needed- the facts show exactly how you are lying.
Here is the dialogue you and I had- highlighted where you were wrong- and don't have the moral integrity to admit it.
Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.
Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.
Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
Me:
Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).
Me:
States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:
Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Indiana- if both are at least 65.
Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.
Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce
So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.
Rabbi: One aberrant case isnt proof of anything.
So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?
a) You claimed that a law in Wisconsin forbidding marriage to some couples unless they were infertile was BS
b) You claimed one aberrant case was not proof- so I provided you with 5
c) You claimed The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens- and have not once addressed the 5 state laws which provide for marriage only if no future citizens can be produced. The State could have forbidden those marriages- but instead chooses to allow those marriages only if they NEVER produce 'future citizens'- what distinguishes those couples from same gender couples?
Just another homophobe who has no balls.
So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?
You are soo funny. You think you demonstrated something. In fact you demonstrated the opposite: you are ignorant and stupid and have lost the argument. The WI statute proves that.So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?
Rabbi did a superb job of demonstrating that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in regard to the law. And that Rabbi quoting Rabbi as the law means exactly dick.
Which makes his latest attempts at citing himself as the law all the more peculiar. Its not like we can't read the law and see that he still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
