Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2015, 02:58 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 02:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 02:19 PM)pablo Wrote:  Then shut the fuck up about it.

I have a pet peeve. When someone presents a stupid argument, I have this compulsion to show that it is stupid. Chas's argument is stupid.

Now you know how we feel about your arguments.

(28-08-2015 02:23 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 02:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Because I belong here...you don't.

Theists aren't welcome here.....they are simply tolerated so you guys can feign open mindedness.

You shouldn't leave.....TTA and the constant circle jerking is too much a part of your life. You'd be devastated.....wouldn't you.

Theists are more than welcome here but it doesn't protect you from backlash you get when you say stupid stuff and make horrible arguments. Problem is most theists
are too busy jerking off to jesus and being so full of themselves they don't learn the rules and don't realize the difference between a civil, intelligent debate and them just shouting crap, ignoring responses and saying "I'm right and your wrong" in 1,000 different ways.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
28-08-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 02:23 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 02:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Because I belong here...you don't.

Theists aren't welcome here.....they are simply tolerated so you guys can feign open mindedness.

You shouldn't leave.....TTA and the constant circle jerking is too much a part of your life. You'd be devastated.....wouldn't you.

Here you are being ugly again. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Theists aren't a problem...theists who feel the need to preach, convert, and condemn are.

Since you last line isn't a question...I suppose I don't need to answer.

Make an attempt to stop with the forgiveness stuff and actually try to interact with people. Many have a short temper with you because of your behavior - I would say past behavior but it's not in the past. You are going to have to have a lot more patience than forgiveness to be a welcome member of this forum.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
28-08-2015, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2015 04:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 01:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The unequal treatment is in the inability to marry the person to whom one is attracted. The RED HERRING you propose, (that all can marry the opposite sex) belies your simpleton ignorance of humanity, of science, of Psychology and anything else one could imagine. You are a fucking idiot. Congrats on your newly minted -51, BTW !
Tongue

I forgive you for calling me a fucking idiot. I hope that one day you will mature to the point where you no longer feel the need to employ childish insults.

Marriage laws do not define marriage as a contract between two people who are attracted to each other. The still do not, even after the SCOTUS ruling. I know people who marry just so they can "double dip" on government programs. Other people marry for money, others marry to improve their social standing. Some marry to gain citizenship, etc. Physical attraction is not prerequisite and never has been a prerequisite to get married. You're point simply isn't germane. Opposite sex marriage laws applied to everyone.....including gays. A gay man could marry a gay woman so that they could both collect railroad retirement benefits for instance(assuming one works for a qualifying railroad).

When you apply for a marriage licence there was and is never any requirement for you to testify under oath that you are attracted to the person you are marrying. The state simply does not care......it is not a factor in the granting of any marriage licence. Never has been....never will. Your argument is a failure.

Too bad you are still a fucking idiot. All that bullshit is irrelevant to the real point. The limiting factor here, is YOUR attempt to limit marriage, FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON, to opposite sex couples. There is no demonstrated state interest in limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, and therefore it strips people for no reason, of the right to marry whom they chose. No one ever said you have to be physically attracted. Emotional attatchment or any private reason should suffice. There is no reason to take rights away from anyone in this matter, and you cannot present one. THAT is the failure here, you stupid idiot. Gay men don't (in general) want to marry a gay woman. The point is utterly beside the point. There is no reason why gay people cannot marry whom they want, and idiots like you who try to justify preventing this have no legitimate reason proposed to do so. State one, or STFU. And this very issue has already been addreseds by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/06/loving-v-virginia/
If anyone tried to stop opposite sex couples from marrying, for whatever reason, they would scream bloody murder, and say their fundamental rights were being infringed. Guess what ? If it IS a fundamental right of straight people to marry whom they want, then everyone has the same right. The right to marry is not "granted" by a state, but "regulated" by the states. There is a vast difference.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 11:22 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Please note I did not comment for or against gay marriage. I only said that the argument Chas employed lacks merit. I showed it lacked merit by showing you can use the the same logic to argue the other side.

I do not think you showed what you think you showed.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 12:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 12:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Supreme Court's decision, a functioning ethical compass, and a rational mind.


Fuck off.

None of that doesn't change the fact that your argument can be used by both sides which makes it impotent. You're being lazy....you can do better.

No, you simply don't understand equal treatment under the law.
The law is not different because of gender, sexuality, race, religion, or politics.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 01:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The unequal treatment is in the inability to marry the person to whom one is attracted. The RED HERRING you propose, (that all can marry the opposite sex) belies your simpleton ignorance of humanity, of science, of Psychology and anything else one could imagine. You are a fucking idiot. Congrats on your newly minted -51, BTW !
Tongue

I forgive you for calling me a fucking idiot. I hope that one day you will mature to the point where you no longer feel the need to employ childish insults.

Marriage laws do not define marriage as a contract between two people who are attracted to each other. The still do not, even after the SCOTUS ruling. I know people who marry just so they can "double dip" on government programs. Other people marry for money, others marry to improve their social standing. Some marry to gain citizenship, etc. Physical attraction is not prerequisite and never has been a prerequisite to get married. You're point simply isn't germane. Opposite sex marriage laws applied to everyone.....including gays. A gay man could marry a gay woman so that they could both collect railroad retirement benefits for instance(assuming one works for a qualifying railroad).

When you apply for a marriage licence there was and is never any requirement for you to testify under oath that you are attracted to the person you are marrying. The state simply does not care......it is not a factor in the granting of any marriage licence. Never has been....never will. Your argument is a failure.

You just blew your own strawman out of the water. Well done. Thumbsup

As you so clearly show, it has to do with freedom of choice.

You really are simple.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 01:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 01:36 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Same sex marriage was illegal by separate laws. The ruling made it so those state laws were void and all 50 states had to recognize same sex marriage. Also you cannot compare same sex marriage to marriage for money.

Personally, I find it offensive I have to go to the state an obtain a license to get married. This isn't something that should be regulated by the state.

Deflection by moving the goalposts is one of your favorite ploys.

You really are fucking dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 01:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 01:36 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Same sex marriage was illegal by separate laws. The ruling made it so those state laws were void and all 50 states had to recognize same sex marriage. Also you cannot compare same sex marriage to marriage for money.

Personally, I find it offensive I have to go to the state an obtain a license to get married. This isn't something that should be regulated by the state.

It's a legal contract that is governed by laws regarding benefits and responsibilities.

You are so fucking ignorant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I know people who marry just so they can "double dip" on government programs.

How's that work? The people on government programs I know either stay unmarried or get divorces and split the kids. 2 separate people claiming half the kids on government programs make more than one person with all the kids and the partner.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Kentucky, impeach this damn bitch ... NOW
(28-08-2015 02:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 02:19 PM)pablo Wrote:  Then shut the fuck up about it.

I have a pet peeve. When someone presents a stupid argument, I have this compulsion to show that it is stupid. Chas's argument is stupid.

The point is about freedom of choice and the fact that what others do doesn't affect you.

You are a fucking simpleton.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: