Love "wins"

[P@triot]

It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason, but fallacies are all you have. You're welcome to them. Have fun tilting!

It's called a slippery slope reality for a reason. Sadly, you unhinged libtards prefer ideology over reality. You're too dumb to even realize that you people call yourselves "progressives" and preach "progress" while denying that you will progress past anything you implemented today (all while history has unequivocally proven that all you do is keep getting more and more radical, more and more unhinged, and pushing the envelope further and further).

You preach progress, you declare yourselves progressives, and here you sit claiming that nothing will "progress" past this point. Nobody knows how to contradict themselves like a libtard. Nobody knows how to take stupid to the next level quite like Seawytch.

Where is this slippery slope? Where has incest become legal as a result of gays getting married? Gays have been marrying legally in some countries for a couple of decades now. Show me this slippery slope to whatever you're freaked out about now.

You've admitted it several times already. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Then marriage became one man (of any race) and one woman (of any race). Then marriage became any gender and any gender. Soon it will be one person and multiple people. And after that, you libtards will move on to incest, bestiality, etc. All the sick shit you people love and support. You'll scream at the top of your lungs how we have no right to "judge" someone who wants to be legally intimate with their their own children. You'll proclaim it is beastilibernatiorphobic not to let someone be legally intimate with their goat.

This is just what you people do. You've already started a massive campaign attempting to "normalize" pedophilia. You bat-shit crazy people have an organization dedicated to it, Slate recently ran an article where a pedophile tried to play the victim, and instead of being shamed into his own suicide, liberals came out in droves to declare how proud they were of the sick S.O.B. and how they applaud him for "coming out".

Again Wytch - you people brag about being "progressives". You cannot show me a single example in history where you people drew the line and said "we 'progressed' to this point - but this is where we stop". It has never happened and it never will. The fact that you needed that much explained to you kind of illustrates how detached from reality you are.

 

[mdk]

Yeah, funny that. The most cringeworthy thing I see is watching old movies and TV shows, and looking at the racial and gender attitudes and wonder how people could think this sort of thing was okay. I imagine it will be the same in 50 years when you homophobes are kind of an embarrassment.

I think your prognosis for the future is exactly the opposite. Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a matter of a legally binding contract will be seen as "the dark ages" of our country's judicial history..

Except that it isn't. Remember, children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents.

Unless YOU are arguing that polygamy marriage "would hurt the children involved"...then all of a sudden children are to be considered anticipated implicit partners to the marriage contract...lol... Hypocrite.

Children are not implicit partners to a marriage contract in any state in this nation. Repeating this stupid horseshit over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[Seawytch]

It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason, but fallacies are all you have. You're welcome to them. Have fun tilting!

It's called a slippery slope reality for a reason. Sadly, you unhinged libtards prefer ideology over reality. You're too dumb to even realize that you people call yourselves "progressives" and preach "progress" while denying that you will progress past anything you implemented today (all while history has unequivocally proven that all you do is keep getting more and more radical, more and more unhinged, and pushing the envelope further and further).

You preach progress, you declare yourselves progressives, and here you sit claiming that nothing will "progress" past this point. Nobody knows how to contradict themselves like a libtard. Nobody knows how to take stupid to the next level quite like Seawytch.

Where is this slippery slope? Where has incest become legal as a result of gays getting married? Gays have been marrying legally in some countries for a couple of decades now. Show me this slippery slope to whatever you're freaked out about now.

You've admitted it several times already. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Then marriage became one man (of any race) and one woman (of any race). Then marriage became any gender and any gender. Soon it will be one person and multiple people. And after that, you libtards will move on to incest, bestiality, etc. All the sick shit you people love and support. You'll scream at the top of your lungs how we have no right to "judge" someone who wants to be legally intimate with their their own children. You'll proclaim it is beastilibernatiorphobic not to let someone be legally intimate with their goat.

This is just what you people do. You've already started a massive campaign attempting to "normalize" pedophilia. You bat-shit crazy people have an organization dedicated to it, Slate recently ran an article where a pedophile tried to play the victim, and instead of being shamed into his own suicide, liberals came out in droves to declare how proud they were of the sick S.O.B. and how they applaud him for "coming out".

Again Wytch - you people brag about being "progressives". You cannot show me a single example in history where you people drew the line and said "we 'progressed' to this point - but this is where we stop". It has never happened and it never will. The fact that you needed that much explained to you kind of illustrates how detached from reality you are.

Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it!

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

 

[JoeB131]

I think your prognosis for the future is exactly the opposite. Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a matter of a legally binding contract will be seen as "the dark ages" of our country's judicial history..

Silly, I know kids raised by gay couples who turned out a lot better than kids raised by straights.

Get Bent. You lost. You are on the wrong side of history.

 

[Syriusly]

It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason, but fallacies are all you have. You're welcome to them. Have fun tilting!

It's called a slippery slope reality for a reason. Sadly, you unhinged libtards prefer ideology over reality. You're too dumb to even realize that you people call yourselves "progressives" and preach "progress" while denying that you will progress past anything you implemented today (all while history has unequivocally proven that all you do is keep getting more and more radical, more and more unhinged, and pushing the envelope further and further).

You preach progress, you declare yourselves progressives, and here you sit claiming that nothing will "progress" past this point. Nobody knows how to contradict themselves like a libtard. Nobody knows how to take stupid to the next level quite like Seawytch.

Where is this slippery slope? Where has incest become legal as a result of gays getting married? Gays have been marrying legally in some countries for a couple of decades now. Show me this slippery slope to whatever you're freaked out about now.

You've admitted it several times already. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Then marriage became one man (of any race) and one woman (of any race). .

Yes- Pattie Boy thinks that the slippery slope started when Americans of different races became legally able to marry each other.

I am guessing Pattie is a Trump voter......

 

[P@triot]

Yes- Pattie Boy thinks that the slippery slope started when Americans of different races became legally able to marry each other.

I am guessing Pattie is a Trump voter......

And you'd be guessing wrong (what else is new). It would've taken you all of 10 seconds to do a search on "Trump" and myself as the member to see that I despise Trump and have bashed him. But like a typical liberal, you were too lazy.

Yes - interracial marriage perfectly illustrates the "progressive" mentality. It doesn't make interracial marriage wrong as you ignorantly interpret. But it shows a progression that liberals are never satisfied and will continue to push the envelope from point A although way to point Z and then beyond even that.

When interracial marriage was first accepted - a homosexual marriage was considered an abomination. Through a relentless campaign (that includes anyone not accepting to to be painted as "evil", "intolerant", and "homophobic"), liberals have managed to garner enough support to get it tolerated in today's society.

They will simply use that same strategy for disturbing, deviant behaviors. The current one is for pedophiles. They have an organization promoting it, they had a pedophile write an article for Slate.com in which the author plays the victim (instead of the poor children), and liberals rallied behind the author instead of denouncing both him and the site for something so offensive.

After pedophilia is tolerated, they will move on to incest and beastiality. It's just what they do. They have never drawn a line in the sand anywhere and they never will. The moment any liberal ever did that they would immediately be branded as an "intolerant conservative".

 

[P@triot]

[Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes - interracial marriage perfectly illustrates the "progressive" mentality. It doesn't make interracial marriage wrong as you ignorantly interpret. But it shows a progression that liberals are never satisfied and will continue to push the envelope from point A although way to point Z and then beyond even that.

When interracial marriage was first accepted - a homosexual marriage was considered an abomination. Through a relentless campaign (that includes anyone not accepting to to be painted as "evil", "intolerant", and "homophobic"), liberals have managed to garner enough support to get it tolerated in today's society.

You mean what happened was that we asked you guys to defend your position. Why was it an "Abomination"? And your answer came back that the Bible says it's wrong and you think it's icky. Those by themselves were not good enough reasons. That's why you lost that argument. Most people don't take the bible literally and the things you think are Icky straight people do all the time. So you really don't have an argument that was rational.

They will simply use that same strategy for disturbing, deviant behaviors. The current one is for pedophiles. They have an organization promoting it, they had a pedophile write an article for Slate.com in which the author plays the victim (instead of the poor children), and liberals rallied behind the author instead of denouncing both him and the site for something so offensive.

Wow. One article? Really, Poodle? No one is advocating pedophilia and unlike homophobia, you can make a good argument against it. - Children aren't physically or mentally ready for sex, and therefor can't consent.

After pedophilia is tolerated, they will move on to incest and beastiality. It's just what they do. They have never drawn a line in the sand anywhere and they never will. The moment any liberal ever did that they would immediately be branded as an "intolerant conservative".

Okay, guy, here's the thing. Because I just LOVE showing you maps. Here's a map of where Cousin Marriage is tolerated.

Wow- Look, it's mostly the Red States where you can marry your cousin Betty Sue!

No one is really arguing to change these laws, either. Because again, you can make a rational argument that inbreeding is bad. (Again, just look at the Red States!)

 

[Seawytch]

It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason, but fallacies are all you have. You're welcome to them. Have fun tilting!

It's called a slippery slope reality for a reason. Sadly, you unhinged libtards prefer ideology over reality. You're too dumb to even realize that you people call yourselves "progressives" and preach "progress" while denying that you will progress past anything you implemented today (all while history has unequivocally proven that all you do is keep getting more and more radical, more and more unhinged, and pushing the envelope further and further).

You preach progress, you declare yourselves progressives, and here you sit claiming that nothing will "progress" past this point. Nobody knows how to contradict themselves like a libtard. Nobody knows how to take stupid to the next level quite like Seawytch.

Where is this slippery slope? Where has incest become legal as a result of gays getting married? Gays have been marrying legally in some countries for a couple of decades now. Show me this slippery slope to whatever you're freaked out about now.

You've admitted it several times already. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Then marriage became one man (of any race) and one woman (of any race). .

Yes- Pattie Boy thinks that the slippery slope started when Americans of different races became legally able to marry each other.

I am guessing Pattie is a Trump voter......

Actually, the "Patriot" that never served doesn't like Trump. He's going to vote for him, make no mistake about it, but he doesn't like that he's voting for him. I mean sure, Trump's a moron and a racist...but Hillary! (she'll raise your taxes you know...that's so much worse than racism)

 

[Seawytch]

[Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the "Patriot" that never served doesn't like Trump. He's going to vote for him, make no mistake about it, but he doesn't like that he's voting for him. I mean sure, Trump's a moron and a racist...but Hillary! (she'll raise your taxes you know...that's so much worse than racism)

Wow - yet another rare moment of honesty from wytchy. Careful here wytchy - you're going down a path that could lead to honesty (which leads to conservatism).

To be clear - Hitlery Clinton is 10x's the moron that Donald Trump is. She's also 10x's the liar that Donald Trump is. Sadly, she's equal to him on ego and unquenchable thirst for power. Both will shred the U.S. Constitution but Hitlery will attempt to illegally confiscate or otherwise restrict firearms while Trump won't.

The major difference is that Hitlery will destroy the U.S. economy (that's what Dumbocrats do - just ask the people of Detroit who live in a city that is not only a third-world shit-hole now, but one that actually had to declare bankruptcy) while Trump will repair it.

I'll be doing what any rational, real American will be doing - voting for Darrell Castle. Wytchy - in her infinite wisdom - will be voting for the hag who will not only destroy America and consolidate more and more power for herself, but who also vehemently opposes gay marriage...

 

[P@triot]

[Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

Because "non familial consenting adults" who were black and white could not marry. And "non familial consenting adults" who were of the same sex could not marry. So you were - and still are - lying. That was not the criteria. The criteria was one man and one woman.

 

[Seawytch]

[Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

Because "non familial consenting adults" who were black and white could not marry. And "non familial consenting adults" who were of the same sex could not marry. So you were - and still are - lying. That was not the criteria. The criteria was one man and one woman.

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Conservative65]

Too bad science doesn't "win" with liberals. Because science once again proves that liberal are lying. Considering that liberals have completely rejected climate science, political science, economics, and history - there is no reason to believe they will accept this science either. We desperately need science to find a cure for liberalism. We have medications for schizophrenia and liberalism is very near to that as a mental disorder. I have to think they could alter those medications to help with liberalism.

What Media Get Wrong About Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

hey, Poodle, not that I think you've ever gotten laid, but when did you decide to be straight?

Funny how you think in the bathroom by yourself playing with yourself means you've been laid.

 

[Conservative65]

[Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it

Please illustrate for me even one single example where liberal's drew the line in their in their quest for "progress". Just one example Seawytch. We're waiting

Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Another day, another lie from Seawytch. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That is an indisputable fact.

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

Because "non familial consenting adults" who were black and white could not marry. And "non familial consenting adults" who were of the same sex could not marry. So you were - and still are - lying. That was not the criteria. The criteria was one man and one woman.

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Based on the 14th amendment, shouldn't law prohibiting someone from marrying multiple spouses be unconstitutional and opposed by the same sex marriage crowd? You guys are all about equal protection until it involves situations you don't like or think shouldn't occur. Hypocrites.

 

[Silhouette]

Based on the 14th amendment, shouldn't law prohibiting someone from marrying multiple spouses be unconstitutional and opposed by the same sex marriage crowd? You guys are all about equal protection until it involves situations you don't like or think shouldn't occur. Hypocrites.

And yet they are the most vocal crowd in our nation OPPOSED to polyamory-marriage. Isn't that just the oddest thing? They claim it's because of the children. And yet when I remind them that "gay marriage" uses a contract to divorce children who are implied parties to marriage from either a mother or father for life, their retort is "marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN...It's between consenting adults only!!". So if polygamists are consenting adults, what do gays care about what it does to the children involved? ...

....and round and round the pretzel-logic goes in the squirming minds of the LGBT cult..

 

[Conservative65]

Based on the 14th amendment, shouldn't law prohibiting someone from marrying multiple spouses be unconstitutional and opposed by the same sex marriage crowd? You guys are all about equal protection until it involves situations you don't like or think shouldn't occur. Hypocrites.

And yet they are the most vocal crowd in our nation OPPOSED to polyamory-marriage. Isn't that just the oddest thing? They claim it's because of the children. And yet when I remind them that "gay marriage" uses a contract to divorce children who are implied parties to marriage from either a mother or father for life, their retort is "marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN...It's between consenting adults only!!". So if polygamists are consenting adults, what do gays care about what it does to the children involved? ...

....and round and round the pretzel-logic goes in the squirming minds of the LGBT cult..

The point is that those arguing in favor of same sex marriage argued that consenting adults that want to marry because they love each other should be able to get married and no one should say otherwise. However, when consenting adults in a situation they oppose want to marry, suddenly it only applies to their true agenda, homos. They could care less about the Constitution. They cared only about their agenda.

 

[Silhouette]

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

And begineth all other forms of marriage between consenting adults claiming a sexual orientation, "intimate choice" or lifestyle... Keep up on the Browns family polyamory/polygamy lawsuit as it enters the US Supreme Court here in about two weeks for review by Justice Sotomayor...: Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

 

[mdk]

And yet they are the most vocal crowd in our nation OPPOSED to polyamory-marriage. Isn't that just the oddest thing? They claim it's because of the children. And yet when I remind them that "gay marriage" uses a contract to divorce children who are implied parties to marriage from either a mother or father for life, their retort is "marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN...It's between consenting adults only!!". So if polygamists are consenting adults, what do gays care about what it does to the children involved? ...

....and round and round the pretzel-logic goes in the squirming minds of the LGBT cult..

Yes, if you ignore the mainstream Church of Latter-day Saints and countless other Christian sects then gays are the most vocal opponents to polygamy in this nation. lol

Again, children are not implied parties to a marriage contract in any state. Perhaps if you repeat it another 3,000 times it will be true, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, if you ignore the mainstream Church of Latter-day Saints and countless other Christian sects then gays are the most vocal opponents to polygamy in this nation. lol

Again, children are not implied parties to a marriage contract in any state. Perhaps if you repeat it another 3,000 times it will be true, but I highly doubt it.

Well what does a church have to do with a sexual orientation like polyamory? (some men's strong attraction and "intimate choice" lifestyle to sex with more than one woman)