Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[danielpalos]

no Thing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it from the very first fallacy.

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

 

[kaz]

You can't even figure out that I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with them. I'm against all government marriage, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but in practically every post you call me one. Cluelessness is stamped across your face, dumb ass

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

 

[danielpalos]

not me, silly; i just claim you are on the Right (of me).

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

 

[kaz]

You are 1/3 correct. There are three areas of politics

Fiscal: True, I am to the right of you

Social: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I'm not only pro-choice and against gay sodomy laws, but I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and other morality laws should be repealed

Military: Nope, I'm to the left of you. I not only oppose the wars in the middle east, but I opposed them when both parties were in power, you just oppose Republicans. Furthermore I think we should leave the middle east entirely. I also think we should shut down all overseas bases and ultimately we should have a permanent military presence in US territory. I also think we should slash the military by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it purely defensive.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[kaz]

What does that have to do with what I said? So in Canada, are you considered a good debater? Here you are just clueless and lost

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

 

[danielpalos]

You have to have more than just diversion and that form of fallacy to do any Thing more than merely impugn me.

We have a Commerce Clause; there is no latitude of construction for a warfare-State; but, Only a welfare-State.

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

don't worry little girl; it is probably just too difficult for you; let adults handle it.

 

[kaz]

Are you saying Canadians aren't trustworthy?

And what does the commerce clause have to do with the discussion?

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

don't worry little girl; it is probably just too difficult for you; let adults handle it.

In Canada, is your word for a retarded person, "adult?" I think I'm starting to get this

 

[danielpalos]

I am only saying you are not very credible without a clue or a Cause; and, our Commerce Clause has to do with Commerce, not Religion.

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

don't worry little girl; it is probably just too difficult for you; let adults handle it.

In Canada, is your word for a retarded person, "adult?" I think I'm starting to get this

it applies more to little girls who have a problem acquiring and possessing sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[kaz]

You are a strange little man. If you have a lucid moment where you can write something that makes sense, let me know

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

don't worry little girl; it is probably just too difficult for you; let adults handle it.

In Canada, is your word for a retarded person, "adult?" I think I'm starting to get this

it applies more to little girls who have a problem acquiring and possessing sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

If you can't dazzle them with your wit ...

 

[danielpalos]

You are a strange little girl who Only has fallacy for her Cause but claims equality for pay and work purposes. Let me know when you can get more serious about a serious relationship with sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't speak Canadian. Can you translate that into English?

don't worry little girl; it is probably just too difficult for you; let adults handle it.

In Canada, is your word for a retarded person, "adult?" I think I'm starting to get this

it applies more to little girls who have a problem acquiring and possessing sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

If you can't dazzle them with your wit ...

i don't have a choice; my t&a is inferior in pay scale to women in the porn sector.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What citizens?

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you even claim to care?

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

 

[Pop23]

I care about the law. If you had an actual case I would care. Since you are only on a side, I realize you don't grasp that. But you won't answer the question because you can't, you made it up. No one is being treated differently in another State than citizens of that State

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

 

[danielpalos]

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

 

[kaz]

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

 

[Skylar]

How are the several citizens in that several State being treated equally?

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

 

[danielpalos]

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Considering that the legal definition of marriage includes one member of each sex, I can't imagine how it could discriminate against either.

How does that work for the several citizens in any several and sovereign State?

And what about cucumbers, how does gay marriage affect cucumbers?

In this case, dear Person on the Right, it is this relevant: Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

And, not Only that, but also this: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

 

[Pop23]

Let's see,

You claim they are not. I keep asking how they are not. You come back with how they are? How who are? You said it has to do something with gays, but you can't give any example where gays who come from any State are treated any differently than gays in whatever State they are in. Which is why I asked what you are talking about. You have no idea how they are not, I got it. You can give it up now

It is self-evident that some citizens are not being treaded to the same privileges and immunities as other citizens.

Nope. Not true. All citizens are entitled to have any relationship fitting the legal description of "marriage" recognized officially by the state. No citizen is entitled to have a relationship not fitting that description recognized officially.

Does that description discriminate based on gender?

Soon it might not even restrict same sex siblings. I mean they do fit into the same sex argument to a tee

Slippery slope much?

Never. The arguments for same sex marriage work equally well for same sex sibling marriage (SSSM).

Disagree?

Then argue the point and quite whining.