J.D Hayworth: Gay Marriage will lead to Men Marrying Horses

[del]

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

Oh yawn. My ex is a Rhodes scholar and I wouldn't call him a success.

When I was at Oxford I met several Rhodes Scholars. They were singularly unimpressive. The Fulbright Scholars though were pretty smart guys and gals.

there's a macdonald's in oxford?

who knew?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh yawn. My ex is a Rhodes scholar and I wouldn't call him a success.

When I was at Oxford I met several Rhodes Scholars. They were singularly unimpressive. The Fulbright Scholars though were pretty smart guys and gals.

there's a macdonald's in oxford?

who knew?

Yeah there is actually. Near the town square. Menu is all in American English.
I am speaking about Oxford, England. Not Oxford, MS. That might be the source of your confusion.
England is a small island nation near Europe. Get someone to show you a world map sometime.

 

[del]

When I was at Oxford I met several Rhodes Scholars. They were singularly unimpressive. The Fulbright Scholars though were pretty smart guys and gals.

there's a macdonald's in oxford?

who knew?

Yeah there is actually. Near the town square. Menu is all in American English.
I am speaking about Oxford, England. Not Oxford, MS. That might be the source of your confusion.
England is a small island nation near Europe. Get someone to show you a world map sometime.

no, england is part of the UK.

it shares a small island with scotland and wales.

do try to keep up, rebbe.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

People like Maddow were fortunate to be born with an apparently "high IQ" but that doesn't make them any better than the lowest idiot walking the street. Besides, high IQ doesn't mean your right; she's wrong about lots of things she talks about: especially conservatism, Republicans and the people who attend Tea Parties. She's a partisan hack and it shows in her viewership numbers.

 

[The Rabbi]

there's a macdonald's in oxford?

who knew?

Yeah there is actually. Near the town square. Menu is all in American English.
I am speaking about Oxford, England. Not Oxford, MS. That might be the source of your confusion.
England is a small island nation near Europe. Get someone to show you a world map sometime.

no, england is part of the UK.

it shares a small island with scotland and wales.

do try to keep up, rebbe.

Someone finally helping you write your posts? That one was more coherent than the rest of the crap you normally spit out.
How about posting something on topic. You know, like having to do with the subject at hand. Or is that beyond you so you just throw insults?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It works because it's accurate. You really think people will all of a sudden forget that pedo relationships aren't consensual and can't be?

Sure. They forgot that the homosexual community isn't just like the hetero one. They forgot that abortion is the killing of a living baby. People can be persuaded to forget all sorts of things if you just phrase it right. Take a marketing class sometime. It's absolutely frightening, how easily manipulated people are by the right words.

Anyway, dear, the point was that Gadawg was oblivious to the fact that the pedophile fringe uses the same language the homosexual activists do, and needed it demonstrated to him. Whether or not I think it will work for him is irrelevant to the point.

The pedophiles are owned lock stock and barrel by the heterosexual community. But I can understand you're wanting to ignore that FACT.

I think pedophiles belong in their own category apart from heterosexual and homosexual. They are definitely shunned by both or should be.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Another STUPID moron gullible enough to swallow the assumption that JD Hayseed or any other CON$ervaTard would ever under any circumstances quote anything accurately.

When a CON$ervoFascist says something is "ambiguous" you can be certain it is quite specific. The law clearly says intimacy between one person and "another" person of the same sex.

Isn't a bull elephant, a bull and a human man all the same sex? Male? The law seems to suggest that only one needs to be a person. Massachusetts should not try to write a law that specifically gives the right to marry to homosexuals. Why don't they write an amendment that says their Massachusetts citizens must be treated equally under the laws of the Commonwealth like Iowa has?

because it was already in the mass constitution.
Massachusetts Constitution

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin


are you intentionally obtuse or just not particularly bright?

Don't be so snotty Del...one of your moderators acting like that is bad enough.

Well if the equality clause is already in there, why did they need a law that mentions intimacy as a reason to allow a marriage? They brought this problem on themselves.

 

[del]

Yeah there is actually. Near the town square. Menu is all in American English.
I am speaking about Oxford, England. Not Oxford, MS. That might be the source of your confusion.
England is a small island nation near Europe. Get someone to show you a world map sometime.

no, england is part of the UK.

it shares a small island with scotland and wales.

do try to keep up, rebbe.

Someone finally helping you write your posts? That one was more coherent than the rest of the crap you normally spit out.
How about posting something on topic. You know, like having to do with the subject at hand. Or is that beyond you so you just throw insults?

i had no idea you were so sensitive, rebbe. would you like a tissue?

it's kind of hard to take the idea of gay marriage leading to bestiality seriously, especially having lived in a state that's had gay marriage for 6 years and knowing that it's made not one shred of difference to anyone who's not gay.

it's especially difficult to take seriously the notion that one needs to provide proof that it won't lead to bestiality before one has the standing to ridicule some asshat from arizona who'll clearly say anything to get rubes like you to support his position, which is what you've asserted previously. i'd remind you that proving a negative is impossible, but i realize that you lack the capacity for that kind of reasoning.

i always enjoy reading the semi-literate screeds of so called conservatives who believe in the constitution and its protections of individual freedom except when it's applied to people who they don't like or that frighten them. it's okay, rebbe, the same laws that protect the mean old gays applies to scared little boys like you.

keep swinging.

 

[gautama]

Assuming he actually said that, how do you know that gay marriage will NOT lead to bestiality?

??????????????

first off

as American citizens gays should have the same rights (or so says the constitution) as heteros


which
as far as I'm concerned
includes the right to marry

second
gays marrying would NOT destroy marriage
that is just pure applesauce espoused by cons

third
gays marrying would HELP our economy

gay marriages would require licenses ($ for government)
gay marriages woud boost flower sales and catering sales
plus all the presents they would recieve

apparently cons hate America and capitalism so much that they want to destroy our country by destroying the economy

fourth
gay marriage would NOT lead to beastialty
this is not just nonsense
it's insane


fifth
even if it it DID lead to beastiality.....

so what?
what's it to you?

if some guy wants to have sex with his own horse isn't that his own business?

sixth
I find it amusing that cons are so in favor of KILLING ANIMALS yet so opposed to having sex with them

let's ask the animals which they would prefer...

hey....horse...
would you prefer to have a man have sex with you?
or hunt you down and kill you?

remember...sex is temporary
and you can always take a shower afterwards

but death....death is permanent

BOTTOM LINE:

No matter how you parse it, YOU ARE ABNORMALS !!!!!!

IOW, YOU ARE FREAKS !!!!!!!

The Constitution is silent on the rights of the FREAKS !!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

no, england is part of the UK.

it shares a small island with scotland and wales.

do try to keep up, rebbe.

Someone finally helping you write your posts? That one was more coherent than the rest of the crap you normally spit out.
How about posting something on topic. You know, like having to do with the subject at hand. Or is that beyond you so you just throw insults?

i had no idea you were so sensitive, rebbe. would you like a tissue?

it's kind of hard to take the idea of gay marriage leading to bestiality seriously, especially having lived in a state that's had gay marriage for 6 years and knowing that it's made not one shred of difference to anyone who's not gay.

it's especially difficult to take seriously the notion that one needs to provide proof that it won't lead to bestiality before one has the standing to ridicule some asshat from arizona who'll clearly say anything to get rubes like you to support his position, which is what you've asserted previously. i'd remind you that proving a negative is impossible, but i realize that you lack the capacity for that kind of reasoning.

i always enjoy reading the semi-literate screeds of so called conservatives who believe in the constitution and its protections of individual freedom except when it's applied to people who they don't like or that frighten them. it's okay, rebbe, the same laws that protect the mean old gays applies to scared little boys like you.

keep swinging.

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

 

[del]

Someone finally helping you write your posts? That one was more coherent than the rest of the crap you normally spit out.
How about posting something on topic. You know, like having to do with the subject at hand. Or is that beyond you so you just throw insults?

i had no idea you were so sensitive, rebbe. would you like a tissue?

it's kind of hard to take the idea of gay marriage leading to bestiality seriously, especially having lived in a state that's had gay marriage for 6 years and knowing that it's made not one shred of difference to anyone who's not gay.

it's especially difficult to take seriously the notion that one needs to provide proof that it won't lead to bestiality before one has the standing to ridicule some asshat from arizona who'll clearly say anything to get rubes like you to support his position, which is what you've asserted previously. i'd remind you that proving a negative is impossible, but i realize that you lack the capacity for that kind of reasoning.

i always enjoy reading the semi-literate screeds of so called conservatives who believe in the constitution and its protections of individual freedom except when it's applied to people who they don't like or that frighten them. it's okay, rebbe, the same laws that protect the mean old gays applies to scared little boys like you.

keep swinging.

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

 

[The Rabbi]

i had no idea you were so sensitive, rebbe. would you like a tissue?

it's kind of hard to take the idea of gay marriage leading to bestiality seriously, especially having lived in a state that's had gay marriage for 6 years and knowing that it's made not one shred of difference to anyone who's not gay.

it's especially difficult to take seriously the notion that one needs to provide proof that it won't lead to bestiality before one has the standing to ridicule some asshat from arizona who'll clearly say anything to get rubes like you to support his position, which is what you've asserted previously. i'd remind you that proving a negative is impossible, but i realize that you lack the capacity for that kind of reasoning.

i always enjoy reading the semi-literate screeds of so called conservatives who believe in the constitution and its protections of individual freedom except when it's applied to people who they don't like or that frighten them. it's okay, rebbe, the same laws that protect the mean old gays applies to scared little boys like you.

keep swinging.

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

 

[del]

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

here you go, forrest:

Assuming he actually said that, how do you know that gay marriage will NOT lead to bestiality?

you're right about one thing, though, i AM laughing my ass off.

kudos

 

[Ravi]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

I already refuted it. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that any form of legalized marriage whether heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, etc., has ever been shown to lead to an increase in bestiality.

Thus the claim is rendered baseless. A baseless claim unsupported by evidence does not need to be refuted by proof of the negative. That is a Burden of Proof fallacy in logic.

As I said - which you couldn't refute -

Banning abortion would lead to bestiality. Is that absurd? If it's so absurd, it should be easy to refute, and yet, you frantically avoided addressing that example. Why? Why not just refute it?

 

[edthecynic]

He was simply making an analogy pertaining to the ambiguity of the law in question, and how some people could go to extremes, as to their interpretation of the law. He was not personally saying it would lead to such. The 40 second soundbyte is really easy to understand in proper context, if one cares about context.

Another STUPID moron gullible enough to swallow the assumption that JD Hayseed or any other CON$ervaTard would ever under any circumstances quote anything accurately.

When a CON$ervoFascist says something is "ambiguous" you can be certain it is quite specific. The law clearly says intimacy between one person and "another" person of the same sex.

Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Isn't a bull elephant, a bull and a human man all the same sex? Male? The law seems to suggest that only one needs to be a person. Massachusetts should not try to write a law that specifically gives the right to marry to homosexuals. Why don't they write an amendment that says their Massachusetts citizens must be treated equally under the laws of the Commonwealth like Iowa has?

You have to admire the CON$ervaTard dedication to the dumb act. Even when you highlight and underline the key points they STILL play dumb rather than admit they are wrong.

For your sake I'll spell it out for you, obviously "another" refers to "person" and not a horse, bull or whatever other animals CON$ervoFascists prefer to have sex with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Anyway, dear, the point was that Gadawg was oblivious to the fact that the pedophile fringe uses the same language the homosexual activists do, and needed it demonstrated to him. Whether or not I think it will work for him is irrelevant to the point.

The 'point' is idiocy. The KKK uses much of the same language that many other conservatives use. What does that prove?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

By the looks of some the conservative women at the tea party rallies, conservative men might just like to marry a horse for the sake of having an easy keeper, as they say, for a change.

 

[beowolfe]

There there. See what a little spell check and cut n paste can do? I knew you could do better, poor thing.

Of course nothing you write answers the question. You haven't provided any proof that Haynesworth is wrong, assuming he actually said that. All you have done is dismissed whatever he might have said out of hand and thrown in your own experience. That isn't arguing. Although it is better than your usual ad hominem dockyard posts.

i usually dismiss statements by ignorant people out of hand. you're the exception that proves the rule, i guess.

what part of *you can't prove a negative* continues to elude you, o learned one?

What negative are you being asked to prove? Hayworth allegedly said that legalizing gay marriage will lead to men marrying horses. If the statement is so absurd then it should be easy to refute. Let's see you do it. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet you can't make any argument that would pass the laugh test.

Here is your proof. Under our current legal system, marriage requires two consenting adults. The horse can't consent, so consequently, a horse cannot marry a human....male or female.

 

[Coyote]

Listen boys and girls, it will only lead to "conservatives" marrying horses. And how is that a bad thing? Oh, it isn't. Horses and "conservatives," try as they may, won't be able to reproduce and the "conservative" gene pool will fade away.

Win/win.

Horses are a step up from sheep...right?