Homophobia: Fun Fact

[YoungRepublican]

No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".

The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.

Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think it’s the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people aren’t equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..

Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.

Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth. I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant. Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.

I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance". That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.

And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking: it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".

Your debate is with my words, not with my curricum vitae, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong. Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.

Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...

We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.

No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".

The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians ‘want’ or ‘demand.’ The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate – citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.

And same-sex couples are opposed to a ‘radical redefinition’ of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their state’s marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

 

[YoungRepublican]

No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".

The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians ‘want’ or ‘demand.’ The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate – citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.

And same-sex couples are opposed to a ‘radical redefinition’ of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their state’s marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong again, as usual.

The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians ‘want’ or ‘demand.’ The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate – citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.

And same-sex couples are opposed to a ‘radical redefinition’ of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their state’s marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.

This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.

Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.

This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.

Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.

Amen to that. Set, Spike, match on this one. It was really too easy, but a lot of fun none the less.

 

[Zoom]

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

Do you know the word Homophobia means?

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Are you homophobic?

 

[YoungRepublican]

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

Do you know the word Homophobia means?

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Are you homophobic?

He is right, there is no such thing as homophobia. There are people who dont mind gays, then there are assholes. Which by his definition of his "right" is exactly what he is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think it’s the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people aren’t equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..

Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.

Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth. I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant. Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.

I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance". That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.

And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking: it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".

Your debate is with my words, not with my curricum vitae, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong. Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.

Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.

See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said. Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said. And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.

The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.

And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree. I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life. I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me. After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.

But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head. Far be it from me to stand in your way.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.

Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth. I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant. Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.

I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance". That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.

And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking: it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".

Your debate is with my words, not with my curricum vitae, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong. Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.

Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.

See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said. Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said. And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.

The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.

And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree. I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life. I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me. After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.

But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head. Far be it from me to stand in your way.

I think its pretty fair to say that my side won this debate and is winning the overall debate. Mainly due to your lack of answering to the whole 11 states legalizing same sex marriage and the constitution debate you wanted to have. I am on my way to a prospurous career path somewhere in criminal defense, maybe corporate law followed up by politics. Keep living in your bubble of what you think tolerance is or isnt, I really dont care. You lost this argument, you will ultimately lose the same sex marriage issue and thats about it, nothing more to say on this subject. Sucks to suck

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong again, as usual.

The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians ‘want’ or ‘demand.’ The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate – citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.

And same-sex couples are opposed to a ‘radical redefinition’ of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their state’s marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function? It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.

So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?

When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so. Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me. You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.

Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely. Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function? It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.

So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?

When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so. Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me. You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.

Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely. Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.

And yes, Clayton, coming from me and directed to you, that actually qualifies as something of a compliment, although I doubt you'll appreciate it. Happy New Year, and don't get used to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.

This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.

Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.

It's easier to lecture to underaged dimwits than it is to defend your positions against intelligent adults, isn't it? I find it pathetic how often the left has to create little fantasy worlds where they're always right, and their opposition never gets to speak.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function? It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.

So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?

When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so. Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me. You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.

Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely. Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.

I get a little kick out of calling people like you out. Its what the Germans call Shaudenfrueidan, look it up. The simple fact that you know how simple your mind is, is extremely enjoyable to me. It's like a game and a fun one for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...

We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.

No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".

The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.

Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think it’s the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people aren’t equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..

Excuse me? Are you aware that all the information that exists is available on the internet? According to NCES the two states with the lowest literacy rates are California and New York. I could be wrong, but my guess is that you would not class either one of those states as being poor, even if California did ban gay marriage.

State and County Literacy Estimates - State Estimates

By the way, did you look at Cecilie's avatar? Are you aware that she chose it specifically because it represents her lifestyle? Calling her intolerant makes as much sense as calling yourself evolved. She has been going easy on you, probably because she doesn't really like making children cry, but I am sure she will be happy to teach you that children should be seen and not heard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.

See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said. Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said. And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.

The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.

And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree. I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life. I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me. After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.

But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head. Far be it from me to stand in your way.

I think its pretty fair to say that my side won this debate and is winning the overall debate. Mainly due to your lack of answering to the whole 11 states legalizing same sex marriage and the constitution debate you wanted to have. I am on my way to a prospurous career path somewhere in criminal defense, maybe corporate law followed up by politics. Keep living in your bubble of what you think tolerance is or isnt, I really dont care. You lost this argument, you will ultimately lose the same sex marriage issue and thats about it, nothing more to say on this subject. Sucks to suck

"We win, we win! We called you mean and nasty and a bunch of other names, and that means we WIN!" Typical kindergarten.

Sparkles, if you had lived through any more of history than last week - or been educated in it by someone with more brains than my dog - you'd know just how much a victory judicial fiats are NOT.

And please, don't confuse my personally telling you that you're an ignorant little boy who isn't worth dignifying with any response beyond, "Go play with your Legos, Junior" with any sort of national debate going on amongst those of us who can actually vote and have a say in the law. The truth is, the Constitutional question has been answered over and over, and the fact that you have no idea what that answer was just emphasized how much your "pretty darn [sic] good education" has been nothing of the sort.

While I have no interest whatsoever in illuminating your stupefying ignorance on this debate, I WILL point out one thing you should learn: history doesn't end, and political debates are NEVER "won"; they're a pendulum that goes on swinging forever, and only damned fools and little children think that because the pendulum is currently swinging their way, that means they've "won" and it's over.

Which are you: a damned fool, a little child, or both? I already know the answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet

Wanna bet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE? Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.

This shouldn’t be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.

Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.

Ideally, the federal government would obey the Constitution and leave marriage to the states, where it belongs.

 

[syrenn]

Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet

so long as there is religion.... homophobia will never die out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!

Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function? It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.

So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?

When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so. Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me. You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.

Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely. Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.

I get a little kick out of calling people like you out. Its what the Germans call Shaudenfrueidan, look it up. The simple fact that you know how simple your mind is, is extremely enjoyable to me. It's like a game and a fun one for me.

Responding to remarks made to someone else as though you were being addressed is "calling me out"?

If you'd just told me you were in an institution for incurably insane adolescents, it would have saved so much time.

Buh bye, crazy person.

 

[Brawd]

homophobia is so GAAAY