If you are agaianst gay marriage, you're a BIGOT!

[Artevelde]

Because that produces retarded offspring. Surely you know about that...

So the right to marry is conditioned by the ability to produce healthy children?

There is no right to marry. It's a choice to marry.

However, if the government chooses to give privileges to those who marry, then those privileges must be available to any consenting adults who choose to marry.

To do less is discriminatory.

So not letting parents and their adult children marry is discriminatory?

 

[Vidi]

You are clearly to stupid to even comprehend concepts like freedom, liberty and right.

If you advocate oppression, you have no right to lay claim to freedom and liberty.

Fine by me, since I don't advocate oppression. But actually, if you look in the constitution you will find no such exclusion. Must be your typical hypocrisy.

Neither do you find a definition of marriage.


But as you seem to not understand the definition either, let me provide one for you:

A legal relationship between spouses:*a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

 

[Papageorgio]

Hyperbole to justify bigotry is still bigotry.

What bigotry? If gays want to marry, then fine by me, it is a state issue.

I am asking why two people in love, a mother and a son or a brother and a sister in love, cannot marry? The criteria set forth is two people in love, they are in love, what is wrong with it?

Because that produces retarded offspring. Surely you know about that...

They love each other, what business is it of your?

 

[Artevelde]

If you advocate oppression, you have no right to lay claim to freedom and liberty.

Fine by me, since I don't advocate oppression. But actually, if you look in the constitution you will find no such exclusion. Must be your typical hypocrisy.

Neither do you find a definition of marriage.


But as you seem to not understand the definition either, let me provide one for you:

A legal relationship between spouses:*a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

I don't agree with your definition and neither does the overwhelming majority of mankind.

 

[Vidi]

Fine by me, since I don't advocate oppression. But actually, if you look in the constitution you will find no such exclusion. Must be your typical hypocrisy.

Neither do you find a definition of marriage.


But as you seem to not understand the definition either, let me provide one for you:

A legal relationship between spouses:*a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

I don't agree with your definition and neither does the overwhelming majority of mankind.

Thankfully we are not a MOB RULE country, but a country ruled by law. Either you support that concept or move out.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the Constitution. Being that it's 4:30 in the morning, I let your other comment slip by. But here you go

The 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I say again. If certain rights and privileges are granted by the law to those who are married, then marriage must legally be available to all regardless of their preference.

PS that also takes it OUT of the hands of the individual states.

 

[Artevelde]

Neither do you find a definition of marriage.


But as you seem to not understand the definition either, let me provide one for you:

A legal relationship between spouses:*a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

I don't agree with your definition and neither does the overwhelming majority of mankind.

Thankfully we are not a MOB RULE country, but a country ruled by law. Either you support that concept or move out.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the Constitution. Being that it's 4:30 in the morning, I let your other comment slip by. But here you go

The 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I say again. If certain rights and privileges are granted by the law to those who are married, then marriage must legally be available to all regardless of their preference.

PS that also takes it OUT of the hands of the individual states.

So you do believe that parents and their adult children and brothers and sisters must be allowed to marry?

 

[Vidi]

I don't agree with your definition and neither does the overwhelming majority of mankind.

Thankfully we are not a MOB RULE country, but a country ruled by law. Either you support that concept or move out.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the Constitution. Being that it's 4:30 in the morning, I let your other comment slip by. But here you go

The 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I say again. If certain rights and privileges are granted by the law to those who are married, then marriage must legally be available to all regardless of their preference.

PS that also takes it OUT of the hands of the individual states.

So you do believe that parents and their adult children and brothers and sisters must be allowed to marry?

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

 

[Artevelde]

Thankfully we are not a MOB RULE country, but a country ruled by law. Either you support that concept or move out.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the Constitution. Being that it's 4:30 in the morning, I let your other comment slip by. But here you go



So I say again. If certain rights and privileges are granted by the law to those who are married, then marriage must legally be available to all regardless of their preference.

PS that also takes it OUT of the hands of the individual states.

So you do believe that parents and their adult children and brothers and sisters must be allowed to marry?

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thankfully we are not a MOB RULE country, but a country ruled by law. Either you support that concept or move out.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the Constitution. Being that it's 4:30 in the morning, I let your other comment slip by. But here you go



So I say again. If certain rights and privileges are granted by the law to those who are married, then marriage must legally be available to all regardless of their preference.

PS that also takes it OUT of the hands of the individual states.

So you do believe that parents and their adult children and brothers and sisters must be allowed to marry?

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

It's not a what if game as soon as gays are allowed too marry when you open that can of worms. Because when you allow a certain group special rights other group who have had their rights infringed will want the same and equal rights. Such as Family members who may want to marry each other.

 

[Vidi]

So you do believe that parents and their adult children and brothers and sisters must be allowed to marry?

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

 

[Artevelde]

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

Your postings are full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Pretty sad really.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wont play the ridiculous what if game. We are discussing a specific topic. If you can't stay on topic, then you're obviously not capable of having this conversation.

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

True liberty and freedoms leads to anarchy which sooner or later will lead to tyranny you must have responsible laws to balance out the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Vidi]

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

Your postings are full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Pretty sad really.

Now you're just repeating the same trolling insults. Boring. I'm going to bed.

Wake me if you actually get a defensible position.

 

[Artevelde]

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

Your postings are full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Pretty sad really.

Now you're just repeating the same trolling insults. Boring. I'm going to bed.

Wake me if you actually get a defensible position.

That your position is totally indefensible has indeed been proven adequately. Everybody here has noticed.

 

[Vidi]

You really are a pathetic hypocrite. And a coward to boot.

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

True liberty and freedoms leads to anarchy which sooner or later will lead to tyranny you must have responsible laws to balance out the tyranny of the majority.

on this, you and I agree.

Freedom and liberty do not mean people are allowed to run amok. My rights end where yours begin. That, in my opinion, is what laws are for, to protect the rights of the individual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You keep using the word hypocrite. As my stated beliefs ALWAYS fall on the side of freedom and liberty, I don't think you know what that word means.

True liberty and freedoms leads to anarchy which sooner or later will lead to tyranny you must have responsible laws to balance out the tyranny of the majority.

on this, you and I agree.

Freedom and liberty do not mean people are allowed to run amok. My rights end where yours begin. That, in my opinion, is what laws are for, to protect the rights of the individual.

I hope you noticed that I said responsible laws. Responsible laws do not give the abnormal special rights.

 

[Vidi]

Your postings are full of hypocrisy and bigotry. Pretty sad really.

Now you're just repeating the same trolling insults. Boring. I'm going to bed.

Wake me if you actually get a defensible position.

That your position is totally indefensible has indeed been proven adequately. Everybody here has noticed.

My position is the 14th amendment. As you have offered no rebuttal other than insults, you have no reasonable argument for your stated position.

Please review the following for future reference:

Rules of Debate | eHow.com

The "burden of proof" is on you.

 

[Vidi]

True liberty and freedoms leads to anarchy which sooner or later will lead to tyranny you must have responsible laws to balance out the tyranny of the majority.

on this, you and I agree.

Freedom and liberty do not mean people are allowed to run amok. My rights end where yours begin. That, in my opinion, is what laws are for, to protect the rights of the individual.

I hope you noticed that I said responsible laws. Responsible laws do not give the abnormal special rights.

Actually they do. That's exactly what responsible laws in a free society do. They bestow rights and privileges to ALL. To do otherwise would mean the society is not free.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you're just repeating the same trolling insults. Boring. I'm going to bed.

Wake me if you actually get a defensible position.

That your position is totally indefensible has indeed been proven adequately. Everybody here has noticed.

My position is the 14th amendment. As you have offered no rebuttal other than insults, you have no reasonable argument for your stated position.

Please review the following for future reference:

Rules of Debate | eHow.com

The "burden of proof" is on you.

When the 14TH amendment was written homosexual acts were illegal, and did not give gays any special rights nor were they even thought of. The 14TH is not a one size fits all rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

on this, you and I agree.

Freedom and liberty do not mean people are allowed to run amok. My rights end where yours begin. That, in my opinion, is what laws are for, to protect the rights of the individual.

I hope you noticed that I said responsible laws. Responsible laws do not give the abnormal special rights.

Actually they do. That's exactly what responsible laws in a free society do. They bestow rights and privileges to ALL. To do otherwise would mean the society is not free.

Well then going by what you said it's OK to allow fathers to marry daughters. It's their right under the 14TH amendment.