J.D Hayworth: Gay Marriage will lead to Men Marrying Horses

[uscitizen]

Most horses are not old enough to get married.

Good point.

Which means the "conservatives" being driven into the arms of horses will be fulfilling two of their fantasies at once.

Ohh! I had not carried that thought to it's logical conclusion.
Thanks for completing that.

 

[del]

Hint: 'of the same sex' is an adjective phrase. It refers to 'another (person)', not the other way around.

Amazon.com: English Grammar for Dummies (0785555054035): Geraldine Woods: Books

Then they should have said "another person of the same sex". The species of the sex is unspecified. Massachusetts needs to delete the "intimacy" reference or risk being misunderstood.

it's okay, we have public schools so almost everyone can understand simple, written english, even the illegals.

iowa would do well to institute some form of public education. imo.

i appreciate your concern, though, as misplaced as it is. perhaps you should tend to your own knitting?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is your proof. Under our current legal system, marriage requires two consenting adults. The horse can't consent, so consequently, a horse cannot marry a human....male or female.

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

Don't lie.

Yeah you neg repped me for lying.
Was I lying that you were too stupid to come up with a decent argument, or lying that the only thing you can do is throw personal attacks?
Actually neither since both are true.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

she's ok, but i know to take it with a grain of salt, she is as fair and balanced as a raging bulldog

I saw part of it, can you post it ?

it was interesting

Rachel Maddow is interviewing J.D. Hayworth tonight, should be interesting.

why bother Martin, I'm sure it was Fair and Balanced coming from Pmsnbc and that Progressive talking head with her high edumacation in politics, Rachel Maddow.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

but young boys, cannot consent to sex, as the boys they want are not 18, or even 16, they are usually under 13.

Leftists like to play this game called "Let Us Define Away the Problems", and they insist that we all play by letting them define their issues in the narrowest and most innocuous terms, while pretending that there is no darker, more disturbing side to what they have planned that WILL, inevitably, appear just as soon as they achieve their current goal. Aid to Families with Dependent Children will never become generalized welfare . . . except it did. Social Security will never be viewed as a general retirement plan . . . except it did. Roe v. Wade will never lead to widespread abortion on demand . . . except it did. Obamacare will never lead to socialized medicine . . . except it will. Child molesters will never use the language and rhetoric of the gay rights movement to advance their pedophilia . . . except they do. And there are no other, more extreme deviants who are undoubtedly repugnant to mainstream America waiting to follow on the coattails of the gay rights movement . . . except there are. The left would love us to believe that there is nothing more at stake and at work here than a bunch of nice, middle-class, mainstream folks who are just like everyone else, except that they love someone of the same sex instead of the opposite. They just wanna go through life, hand in hand, exactly the way everyone else does. We're never supposed to contemplate the realities of the homosexual community, or all the other things that will come along behind and want THEIR day of "mainstreaming".

Gay rights equals child molesters? Show me where a child molester has ever used the gay rights movement language to advance their "cause".

Okay. From the NAMBLA website:

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was formed in 1978. It was inspired by the success of a campaign based in Boston's gay community to defend against a local witchhunt.

NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.
NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual. We support greater economic, political and social opportunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust. We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.

We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships.

Sound familiar?

And now, since your pigheaded, determined ignorance of the world around you has forced me to go to that filthy website, I consider you to have irretrievably crossed the line. Begone.

FLUSH!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

on behalf of straight people, I apologize for stupid statements like therabbi's and j.d. suckworth

Can you speak on behalf of a group you're not a member of? Wouldn't that be like me speaking on behalf of the GOP?

i suppose, but where's the fun in that

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thank you. Exactly the right answer. Too bad Del and NYCarabineer are too freaking stupid to come up with something and instead toss ad hominems to cover up their lack of mental process.

Don't lie.

Yeah you neg repped me for lying.
Was I lying that you were too stupid to come up with a decent argument, or lying that the only thing you can do is throw personal attacks?
Actually neither since both are true.

You said I didn't come up with anything, despite the fact that I refuted your nonsense comprehensively. You want to rebut it go ahead. Lie about me and you get a neg rep. That's the only thing I'll neg rep anyone for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

Horses are a step up from sheep...right?

Not the miniature ones.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

she is a partisan hack, i have no use for partisans on either side

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

People like Maddow were fortunate to be born with an apparently "high IQ" but that doesn't make them any better than the lowest idiot walking the street. Besides, high IQ doesn't mean your right; she's wrong about lots of things she talks about: especially conservatism, Republicans and the people who attend Tea Parties. She's a partisan hack and it shows in her viewership numbers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't lie.

Yeah you neg repped me for lying.
Was I lying that you were too stupid to come up with a decent argument, or lying that the only thing you can do is throw personal attacks?
Actually neither since both are true.

You said I didn't come up with anything, despite the fact that I refuted your nonsense comprehensively. You want to rebut it go ahead. Lie about me and you get a neg rep. That's the only thing I'll neg rep anyone for.

You didnt refute anything except the notion that you have a brain in your skull. You wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit you in the ass. Much less are you capable of forming one. And it wasn't that hard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah you neg repped me for lying.
Was I lying that you were too stupid to come up with a decent argument, or lying that the only thing you can do is throw personal attacks?
Actually neither since both are true.

You said I didn't come up with anything, despite the fact that I refuted your nonsense comprehensively. You want to rebut it go ahead. Lie about me and you get a neg rep. That's the only thing I'll neg rep anyone for.

You didnt refute anything except the notion that you have a brain in your skull. You wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit you in the ass. Much less are you capable of forming one. And it wasn't that hard.

I just have to prove you wrong, I don't have to get you to admit it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I just want honesty and cooperation in politics

I guess im dislutional

 

[actsnoblemartin]

O'reilly, olbermann, hannity, mathews

all care more about being the loudest then the truth

 

[The Rabbi]

You said I didn't come up with anything, despite the fact that I refuted your nonsense comprehensively. You want to rebut it go ahead. Lie about me and you get a neg rep. That's the only thing I'll neg rep anyone for.

You didnt refute anything except the notion that you have a brain in your skull. You wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit you in the ass. Much less are you capable of forming one. And it wasn't that hard.

I just have to prove you wrong, I don't have to get you to admit it.

Well you failed to do that too.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

you all failed, i win

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just want honesty and cooperation in politics

I guess im dislutional

You're not delusional for wanting it. You're delusional if you think you're getting it.

 

[rdean]

Oops, too late, it's already happened.

Ménage à trois?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I just want honesty and cooperation in politics

I guess im dislutional

You're not delusional for wanting it. You're delusional if you think you're getting it.

Vote for me!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

you got my vote

I just want honesty and cooperation in politics

I guess im dislutional

You're not delusional for wanting it. You're delusional if you think you're getting it.

Vote for me!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah well, thanks to Rachel Maddow, we now find out that the wording of the definition of marriage, from Massachusetts, that J. D. Hayworth based his idiotic conclusions on,

doesn't exist.

A big 'sorry 'bout dat' to all of you who walked the plank for J.D.