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

[edthecynic]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLIx-F7g-8&feature=related]YouTube - J.D. HAYWORTH vs RACHEL MADDOW Round 2[/ame]

 

[Political Junky]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLIx-F7g-8&feature=related]YouTube - J.D. HAYWORTH vs RACHEL MADDOW Round 2[/ame]

Poor J.D., Rachel caught him in a bald faced lie.

 

[G.T.]

OK. That's an argument. How many pages did it take for the libtards here to come up with one?
Unbelievable. Can't refute an absurd statement so they pile on insults.

But for the record, once you get away from marriage=1man+1woman there is no limit to it. So maybe someone wants to marry his horse to get vet benefits. What argument could you deduce to say marriage between a man and horse is not a marriage?Similarly with pederasty. In fact NAMBLA's goal is to normalize sex between grown men and underage boys so it isn't far-fetched.

That's pretty simple: Animals are not Sentient, Animals cannot give their Consent to enter into a legal Contract.

But you knew that.....

/.
//
//..

Hopefull.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. That's an argument. How many pages did it take for the libtards here to come up with one?
Unbelievable. Can't refute an absurd statement so they pile on insults.

But for the record, once you get away from marriage=1man+1woman there is no limit to it. So maybe someone wants to marry his horse to get vet benefits. What argument could you deduce to say marriage between a man and horse is not a marriage?Similarly with pederasty. In fact NAMBLA's goal is to normalize sex between grown men and underage boys so it isn't far-fetched.

That's pretty simple: Animals are not Sentient, Animals cannot give their Consent to enter into a legal Contract.

But you knew that.....

/.
//
//..

Hopefull.

That argument, which is the right one, was given a couple of pages ago. But it is amazing how such a simple thing eluded the more dimwitted leftists around here who instead decided to attack me.

 

[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.

Demanding that people refute a statement unsupported by fact or evidence is ignorant. A claim that cannot be supported by evidence refutes itself.

 

[Ravi]

OK. That's an argument. How many pages did it take for the libtards here to come up with one?
Unbelievable. Can't refute an absurd statement so they pile on insults.

But for the record, once you get away from marriage=1man+1woman there is no limit to it. So maybe someone wants to marry his horse to get vet benefits. What argument could you deduce to say marriage between a man and horse is not a marriage?Similarly with pederasty. In fact NAMBLA's goal is to normalize sex between grown men and underage boys so it isn't far-fetched.

That's pretty simple: Animals are not Sentient, Animals cannot give their Consent to enter into a legal Contract.

But you knew that.....

/.
//
//..

Hopefull.

That argument, which is the right one, was given a couple of pages ago. But it is amazing how such a simple thing eluded the more dimwitted leftists around here who instead decided to attack me.

Most people are bright enough to understand that people aren't allowed to marry animals and didn't realize that someone needed an explanation as to why.

In your case, it turned out they were wrong.

But then you are incredibly dimwitted.

 

[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.

Demanding that people refute a statement unsupported by fact or evidence is ignorant. A claim that cannot be supported by evidence refutes itself.

And here's one of the very dimwits I was speaking about trying to excuse his lack of thought.

 

[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.

I came up with an argument you were unable to refute, which certainly qualifies it as a decent argument.

 

[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.

I came up with an argument you were unable to refute, which certainly qualifies it as a decent argument.

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

 

[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.

I came up with an argument you were unable to refute, which certainly qualifies it as a decent argument.

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

You're the one who never formulated an argument. My argument is in post 155 and remains uncontested.

 

[bodecea]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLIx-F7g-8&feature=related]YouTube - J.D. HAYWORTH vs RACHEL MADDOW Round 2[/ame]

Poor J.D., Rachel caught him in a bald faced lie.

Wow...either it's there or it's not there....it's not a difference of opinion.

He's a loony.

 

[The Rabbi]

I came up with an argument you were unable to refute, which certainly qualifies it as a decent argument.

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

You're the one who never formulated an argument. My argument is in post 155 and remains uncontested.

Geezus you are the biggest dumshit to walk the planet.
Here is your "argument" from 155:

I already refuted it. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any form of legalized marriage whether heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, etc., has ever been shown to lead to an increase in bestiality.

Thus the claim is rendered baseless. A baseless claim unsupported by evidence does not need to be refuted by proof of the negative. That is a Burden of Proof fallacy in logic.

As I said - which you couldn't refute -

First you make a mere assertion, that the argument was refuted.
Second you make an unfounded claim that there is no evidence for it. Have you looked through every study? Have you examined every piece of evidence?
Then you merely assert that the claim is baseless because you haven't found evidence for it. A circular argument.
Arguing from an absence of evidence is not an argument.
The proper argument is the one already given.
And the only proof obtainable here is that you are the most clueless fucking moron on the entire planet and way out of your depth here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

You're the one who never formulated an argument. My argument is in post 155 and remains uncontested.

Geezus you are the biggest dumshit to walk the planet.
Here is your "argument" from 155:

I already refuted it. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any form of legalized marriage whether heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, etc., has ever been shown to lead to an increase in bestiality.

Thus the claim is rendered baseless. A baseless claim unsupported by evidence does not need to be refuted by proof of the negative. That is a Burden of Proof fallacy in logic.

As I said - which you couldn't refute -

First you make a mere assertion, that the argument was refuted.
Second you make an unfounded claim that there is no evidence for it. Have you looked through every study? Have you examined every piece of evidence?
Then you merely assert that the claim is baseless because you haven't found evidence for it. A circular argument.
Arguing from an absence of evidence is not an argument.The proper argument is the one already given.
And the only proof obtainable here is that you are the most clueless fucking moron on the entire planet and way out of your depth here.

Agreed. And since you have offered absolutely NO evidence that legalizing gay marriage will lead to bestiality, or legalizing marrying animals, or anything of the sort, you have,

by your own admission, not made an argument.

Thus, since you have not made an argument, there is no need for refutation. One does not need to refute non-existent arguments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

You're the one who never formulated an argument. My argument is in post 155 and remains uncontested.

Geezus you are the biggest dumshit to walk the planet.
Here is your "argument" from 155:

I already refuted it. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any form of legalized marriage whether heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, etc., has ever been shown to lead to an increase in bestiality.

Thus the claim is rendered baseless. A baseless claim unsupported by evidence does not need to be refuted by proof of the negative. That is a Burden of Proof fallacy in logic.

As I said - which you couldn't refute -

First you make a mere assertion, that the argument was refuted.
Second you make an unfounded claim that there is no evidence for it. Have you looked through every study? Have you examined every piece of evidence?
Then you merely assert that the claim is baseless because you haven't found evidence for it. A circular argument.
Arguing from an absence of evidence is not an argument.
The proper argument is the one already given.
And the only proof obtainable here is that you are the most clueless fucking moron on the entire planet and way out of your depth here.

And while we're on the subject, why don't you prove to us all that you've never had sex with a horse. That should be easy to prove, right, by your own measure? But if you can't prove it, then please tell us why we all should not assume that you have had sex with a horse.
After all, you want us to assume, for lack of proof to the contrary, that gay marriage leads to having sex with horses. Let's apply the same standard to you and your equine amour.

 

[amrchaos]

Assuming he actually said that, how do you know that gay marriage will NOT lead to bestiality?

Bestiality already exist.......And in most cases it is a human and an animal of the opposite sex.

By the way--heterosexuality does not lead to beastiality!

 

[G.T.]

What's the point of asking such a ridiculous question to begin with, BTW? "Someone refute something so ridiculously untrue for me so I can...........wha?"......I don't get it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

The word "intimacy" was mentioned numerous times in the Supreme Court ruling. Madcow read that out loud herself.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

The word "intimacy" was mentioned numerous times in the Supreme Court ruling. Madcow read that out loud herself.

Notice how CON$ cling to their lies rather than ever admit the truth!!

The law clearly says HUMAN not something that vaguely implies a possible animal "intimacy." Here is the quote she cited that you STILL pretend to be too dumb to understand:

Civil marriage is at once a deeply
personal commitment to another human being and a highly public
celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy,
fidelity, and family.

 

[del]

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.

The word "intimacy" was mentioned numerous times in the Supreme Court ruling. Madcow read that out loud herself.

SCOTUS never ruled on it, and the word *intimacy* appears once in the ruling by the mass supreme judicial court. choke on it.

you guys in iowa really ought to consider implementing some form of public edumacation.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, actually you never did. You never formulated any argument.
Your inability to understand that is part of what marks you as a dimwit.

You're the one who never formulated an argument. My argument is in post 155 and remains uncontested.

Geezus you are the biggest dumshit to walk the planet.
Here is your "argument" from 155:

I already refuted it. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any form of legalized marriage whether heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, etc., has ever been shown to lead to an increase in bestiality.

Thus the claim is rendered baseless. A baseless claim unsupported by evidence does not need to be refuted by proof of the negative. That is a Burden of Proof fallacy in logic.

As I said - which you couldn't refute -

First you make a mere assertion, that the argument was refuted.
Second you make an unfounded claim that there is no evidence for it. Have you looked through every study? Have you examined every piece of evidence?
Then you merely assert that the claim is baseless because you haven't found evidence for it. A circular argument.
Arguing from an absence of evidence is not an argument.
The proper argument is the one already given.
And the only proof obtainable here is that you are the most clueless fucking moron on the entire planet and way out of your depth here.

I almost asked why you lie. Then I remembered you're a Jew and you can't help it.