Poll For Conservatives:

[bodecea]

About like if I suddenly had the right to ride a horse.

You do have the right to ride a horse...as do I, as does anyone else...ergo, it's not a "special" right.

Try again.

Actually I don't. There is no right to ride a horse. But if I did it would be pretty meaningless since I don't ride horses and am allergic to them. It would only benefit horse riders.
Ditto here.
Remind me why giving homosexuals special rights will benefit anyone, including society again?

Actually, if the horse is yours or you have gained permission from the owner, you have every right to ride a horse...whether you CHOOSE to exercise that right is up to you.

Your Fail example is Fail.


But darn funny.

Try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do have the right to ride a horse...as do I, as does anyone else...ergo, it's not a "special" right.

Try again.

Actually I don't. There is no right to ride a horse. But if I did it would be pretty meaningless since I don't ride horses and am allergic to them. It would only benefit horse riders.
Ditto here.
Remind me why giving homosexuals special rights will benefit anyone, including society again?

Actually, if the horse is yours or you have gained permission from the owner, you have every right to ride a horse...whether you CHOOSE to exercise that right is up to you.

Your Fail example is Fail.


But darn funny.

Try again.

No, actually there is no right to ride a horse.
FAIL.

 

[bodecea]

Actually I don't. There is no right to ride a horse. But if I did it would be pretty meaningless since I don't ride horses and am allergic to them. It would only benefit horse riders.
Ditto here.
Remind me why giving homosexuals special rights will benefit anyone, including society again?

Actually, if the horse is yours or you have gained permission from the owner, you have every right to ride a horse...whether you CHOOSE to exercise that right is up to you.

Your Fail example is Fail.


But darn funny.

Try again.

No, actually there is no right to ride a horse.
FAIL.

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

 

[Charles_Main]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, if the horse is yours or you have gained permission from the owner, you have every right to ride a horse...whether you CHOOSE to exercise that right is up to you.

Your Fail example is Fail.


But darn funny.

Try again.

No, actually there is no right to ride a horse.
FAIL.

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

No, there is no enumerated right anywhere to ride a horse. Or a boy.
Sorry.

 

[DiveCon]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

it is a great big FAIL for grump

 

[Charles_Main]

No, actually there is no right to ride a horse.
FAIL.

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

No, there is no enumerated right anywhere to ride a horse. Or a boy.
Sorry.

Yes the clearly is.

We have the right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do we not.

Riding a horse is for many pursuing happiness.

You could also argue the right to free expression gives you the right to Express yourself by riding a horse

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

No, there is no enumerated right anywhere to ride a horse. Or a boy.
Sorry.

Yes the clearly is.

We have the right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do we not.

Riding a horse is for many pursuing happiness.

You could also argue the right to free expression gives you the right to Express yourself by riding a horse

What part of the Constitution contains the right to life liberty and happiness?

 

[DiveCon]

No, there is no enumerated right anywhere to ride a horse. Or a boy.
Sorry.

Yes the clearly is.

We have the right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do we not.

Riding a horse is for many pursuing happiness.

You could also argue the right to free expression gives you the right to Express yourself by riding a horse

What part of the Constitution contains the right to life liberty and happiness?

10th amendment

The powers not explained in the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people .

 

[Dr Grump]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

As I said, even though I set up the poll it is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) All cons on the board would have to vote on it
2) As I didn't stipulate you could see who voted, I have no idea who has actually voted. Some libs could have voted.

That aside, you do get the win...the why's and wherefor's are my fault...

 

[Charles_Main]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

As I said, even though I set up the poll it is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) All cons on the board would have to vote on it
2) As I didn't stipulate you could see who voted, I have no idea who has actually voted. Some libs could have voted.

That aside, you do get the win...the why's and wherefor's are my fault...

Yeah I suspect it is closer to 50% in reality still.

 

[DiveCon]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

As I said, even though I set up the poll it is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) All cons on the board would have to vote on it
2) As I didn't stipulate you could see who voted, I have no idea who has actually voted. Some libs could have voted.

That aside, you do get the win...the why's and wherefor's are my fault...

Yeah I suspect it is closer to 50% in reality still.

i didnt vote because neither option supports my position
had he included a 3rd option of "i dont support government sponsored marriage for anyone" i would have chosen that one

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes the clearly is.

We have the right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do we not.

Riding a horse is for many pursuing happiness.

You could also argue the right to free expression gives you the right to Express yourself by riding a horse

What part of the Constitution contains the right to life liberty and happiness?

10th amendment

The powers not explained in the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people .

Cool. So now I can go smoke dope in front of a police station because that's what makes me happy and I have a constitutional right to do so! Got it!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, if the horse is yours or you have gained permission from the owner, you have every right to ride a horse...whether you CHOOSE to exercise that right is up to you.

Your Fail example is Fail.


But darn funny.

Try again.

No, actually there is no right to ride a horse.
FAIL.

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

Both of you are incorrect and both correct.
But you are both skirting the issue by using analogies
At the end of the day, the more militant gay representatives who are pushing for their version of "equality" are seeking protected class status.
They want their right to do as they wish( example would be egredious and obsecene public dispalys of affection) with no objections of any kind permitted. In other words it would be fine to say to a hetero couple swapping spit and ass grabbing in public, "hey get a room". Gays would most likely want such observations banned and deemed "hate speech". They are also seeking minority status. Same as ethnic or racial. They are also seeking total acceptance and that acceptance to be mandated by law. Government can make law, but it cannot force the people to accept anything. That would be a violation of civil rights.
The gay community is being hijakced by a few boistrous and more radical people that are going to end up ruining any chance for true equality for gay people. It isn't right.
I do not think that one's preference should preclude them from enjoying basic civil equality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Post of the day.
The issue is being flogged by gay activists intent on making their own "proclivities" seem normal. And if they can't do that by propaganda they will do it by legislation. And if they can't do it by legislation they will do it via the courts.

 

[Avorysuds]

Worthless poll unless ytou have the person that voted name show up. I'll bet anything someone like TM/RW/Retardon will vote *no*.

 

[Avorysuds]

Gay marriage is pointless. The only reason they are into it is for the gravy of how the tax structure is set up.

Allowing gays to marry makes sense like allowing ducks to eat pork makes sense. Marriage is about guaranteeing the interests of any children produced of the union. (Not all heterosexual couples have or want children, of course , but they are a possibility. ) It is also there to protect the interests of the parties involved because of financial things. Wives do give up a lot to get married. Gays don't need the protections of marriage, they won't produce kids in the marriage, and the only point is to score tax gains.

Not a good enough reason, really.

That is about as retarded as reasons get to not allow people to get married in a "free" country.

Getting married has nothing o do with love, or taking care of your partner for the rest of your life, no... it's about the *possibility* that you *might* but don’t have to have children.

I'm pretty hard core conservative but I'm not blinded by *something* so badly that I can't see how oppressing a group of people that have no affect on you is unconstitutional. If anything you sound like a run of the mill twat liberal that not only needs but feels they have a absolute right to dictate how others live their life.

Sorry I feel I have to be so rube but we are only talking about undeniable oppression here based off “your feelings” getting hurt that someone could be treated equally as you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oppressing? Seriously??

 

[bodecea]

Oppressing? Seriously??

So...to you, it's only a question of degree. If gays are being discriminated against by law...just a little bit...it's ok?

 

[elvis]

another thread started by someone who equates all non-lefties with Pat Robertson.