Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Mr.Nick]

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the **** are you to impede them.

They cannot LEGALLY consent...but thanks for playing "illogical fallacies" today.

Neither can a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Besides you cannot speak for pets asshole....

Can a mentally retarded person consent or is there a limit there??

 

[Inthemiddle]

SO which version of marriage we going for here?

I'm fond of the rapist and victim one.

Old Testament references to "virgins" who are "raped" are usually taken out of context and mistranslated for modern usage. In those days, a man who has sex with a woman not promised to him was "raping" the girl in the sense that he did not have permission to have sex with her, because consent had to come from the father (or other male relative who was in charge) via the woman being given to him in marriage.

These terms do not precisely translate well into modern usage, and are somewhat clumsy. But suffice it to say, it frequently is not "rape" in the sense in which we understand the word today, i.e. a forcible sexual attack.

 

[Stephanie]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So, you were equally upset when the SCOTUS overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban law.

oh my gawd...was that voted in by THE PEOPLE?

 

[bodecea]

It's not a fallacy...

Not when there are crazy people who want to marry their cars, pets, trees etc...

The basis is there and there is evidence to support the notion "individuals" would marry just about anything....

It's NOT a fallacy...

Calling that a fallacy is just a convenient argument - its like calling those who oppose Obamafuck a racist..

You REALLY need to look up the definition of consent (especially before some farmer shoots you for screwing with his sheep).

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the **** are you to impede them.

And funnier....and funnier....and funnier....

 

[bodecea]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So if CA voted to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?

they can try I guess. too bad for you and them, it's our Constitutional right..Homosexual marriage isn't..
so dumb comparison, one of many I've seen in this thread.

Where does it say "handguns" in the Constitution, Steph?

 

[Seawytch]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So if CA voted to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?

they can try I guess. too bad for you and them, it's our Constitutional right..Homosexual marriage isn't..
so dumb comparison, one of many I've seen in this thread.

The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right, but I never expected you to know that. Now you do.

 

[bodecea]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So, you were equally upset when the SCOTUS overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban law.

oh my gawd...was that voted in by THE PEOPLE?

Wait....are you saying that laws voted in by referendum are somehow MORE sacrosanct and bulletproof from judicial review than laws voted in by legislative bodies?


Wow....the serious GAPS in some posters' education is alarming................and amusing.

 

[Stephanie]

So if CA voted to ban handguns, you'd be okay with that?

they can try I guess. too bad for you and them, it's our Constitutional right..Homosexual marriage isn't..
so dumb comparison, one of many I've seen in this thread.

The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right, but I never expected you to know that. Now you do.

my my, miss nasty..

 

[g5000]

IS IT A CIVIL RIGHT OR NOT? I have no need to answer your question other then to say if as you claim it is a civil right you MUST also agree to incest relationships between consenting adults.

And IF that is the ruling, then the absolute right thing to do LEGALLY and according to the Constitution, would be to make them legal.

It is illogical to claim one must make a harmful practice legal because a harmless one has been made legal. That would be the slippery slope fallacy.

Thus the corner you have painted yourself into. Since you insist incest must be made legal if gay marriage is made legal, and you don't want to be illogical, they must either both be harmeless or both be harmful. So which is it?

Would there be anything wrong with making incest legal?

You are the one arguing that what two consenting adults do is no ones business and further that because of that it is a Civil Right.

So explain again how it is harmful? The incident rate of 1st Generation incest is almost ZERO. We allow people with defects that have a 50 percent chance to occur to reproduce. The argument has been made that a same sex couple will have no effect on the sexual identity of any children in the home. Why would you assume that an Incestuous couple would effect the chances of their offspring marrying one another?

Man, you are really leaping and jumping all over the place in your desperation to cover up your horrible mistake of equating incest to gay sex, aren't you?

I am not arguing that two consenting men or two consenting women in marriage are harmful. It is you who came along and tried to argue that if gays are allowed to marry, we must allow incest. And so I have pointed out your claim can only make sense if you believe gay marriage and incest are equally harmful or equally harmless.

Since this has been pointed out to you, you have been choking and sputtering and refusing to tell us which way you believe to be the case.

This is very common with people who come into gay marriage debates. They always bring up bestiality, incest, pedophilia and all kinds of stuff like that. I even made a prediction someone would do that in the last gay marraige topic a couple week ago. And I even said they would do so even though I made the prediction.

I bagged two in that topic.

I hope your stupidity has been driven home deep enough. I can respect someone who comes along and says they hate fags and that's why they don't want gay marriage. I may not like them much, but I at least respect their honesty. I don't even bother arguing with them. Their mind is made up, and so is mine.

People who use logical fallacies to cover up their bigotry, though, I have no respect for and will run circles around them for the sport.


And by the way. That thing you did at the end of your post there. "The argument has been made" followed by "why would you assume". I see what you did there. A very clumsy strawman.

 

[bodecea]

they can try I guess. too bad for you and them, it's our Constitutional right..Homosexual marriage isn't..
so dumb comparison, one of many I've seen in this thread.

The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right, but I never expected you to know that. Now you do.

my my, miss nasty..

So....you object to learning something. Color me surprised.

 

[Stephanie]

can't wait to see abortion overturned...

 

[Seawytch]

And in what universe do you speak for pets???

Maybe pets want to marry their masters...

Who says they don't and who the **** are you to impede them.

They cannot LEGALLY consent...but thanks for playing "illogical fallacies" today.

Neither can a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Can a mentally retarded person consent or is there a limit there??

An adult can give informed consent. You REALLY need to educate yourself on informed consent before you get yourself in trouble with the law.

It is up to the courts to deem a mentally handicapped individual incompetent.

 

[Stephanie]

The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right, but I never expected you to know that. Now you do.

my my, miss nasty..

So....you object to learning something. Color me surprised.

ooooooooooooo, miss nasties sister..

 

[g5000]

I am just shocked over how many people support a court overturning the will of the people through a legitimate vote.

sad

we are so screwed in this country.

So, you were equally upset when the SCOTUS overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban law.

oh my gawd...was that voted in by THE PEOPLE?

Disingenuous. Gun laws by states have been overturned by the courts. You don't hear people screaming about states rights when that happens. The DC ban was enacted by a city council elected by THE PEOPLE.

 

[bodecea]

can't wait to see abortion overturned...

Are you kidding? And kill the Right wing Golden Goose?

 

[bodecea]

my my, miss nasty..

So....you object to learning something. Color me surprised.

ooooooooooooo, miss nasties sister..

Looking for content in your post.


Nope....try again.

 

[Stephanie]

So....you object to learning something. Color me surprised.

ooooooooooooo, miss nasties sister..

Looking for content in your post.


Nope....try again.

Oh yeah, like all the content in yours...

 

[rightwinger]

I keep one in my back pocket...

Very good...

Now, look for the amendment that starts......... Congress shall pass no laws...

Like Amendments XI-XXVII???

Yeah read the end of those amendments...

Wow......I mean just wow

Someone who claims to carry a Constitution in his back pocket does not recognize what follows "Congress shall pass no laws"

I guess carrying it on your ass is the correct place

 

[Mr.Nick]

They cannot LEGALLY consent...but thanks for playing "illogical fallacies" today.

Neither can a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Can a mentally retarded person consent or is there a limit there??

An adult can give informed consent. You REALLY need to educate yourself on informed consent before you get yourself in trouble with the law.

It is up to the courts to deem a mentally handicapped individual incompetent.

Ethically I agree, morally I do not.

Also, how does a judge define an individual???

One individual defines another?? - Yea that is a problem.

To me you're retarded....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Whether or not people are forced to participate in gay weddings (and many will be) isn't the issue. Everyone will be forced to accept these liasions as legal.

Remember when abortion was between a woman and her doctor? Those were the good old days, now we all have to pay for the decision. It is now normal health care. So unless you know exactly where it will end up, it's hard to be for this kind of depravity.

About the only thing people can do is take care of themselves. Keep your children away from degenerates, stay away from them yourself. When kids come home with what they learned in school, train them out of it. When you are in a position of being forced to accept a newly normalized same sex relationship, get out of it.

Ok who exactly is going to be "forced" to participate in gay weddings?

Participate, or PAY! Here's just one example:
Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer

Here's another:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/gay-couple-sues-illinois_n_827115.html

There's an awful lot of this kind of lawsuit going on.