100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Prop 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. I thought the topic was about homosexers getting married. Off topic? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 03/26/13 04:22 PM
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... what a rebel... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... what a rebel...
Yeah I am, try it sometime, maybe you'll find that backbone you're missing....... and way to dodge the argument.......again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discrimination is not always a bad thing.
It means to use discernment. It also means to differentiate. For example- difference between right and wrong...or moral and immoral. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... what a rebel...
Yeah I am, try it sometime, maybe you'll find that backbone you're missing....... and way to dodge the argument.......again. what argument? i know where you stand, and you know where i stand... it doesn't matter who's right or wrong here, our opinions are opposite... whats the big deal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works.
Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 03/26/13 05:45 PM
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... what a rebel...
Yeah I am, try it sometime, maybe you'll find that backbone you're missing....... and way to dodge the argument.......again. what argument? i know where you stand, and you know where i stand... it doesn't matter who's right or wrong here, our opinions are opposite... whats the big deal? the argument about the law??? you never once gave me or sing a straight answer and bull it doesn't matter, when you are trying to actively take away the rights of a group of people who don't have what you do simply because of whom they love, it DOES matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. What about polygamy, incest and pedophiles discrimination. Should those be fought for too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about polygamy. Should those be fought for too? I'd vote a few times fer polygamy. 
Just as long as I had a separate house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 03/26/13 05:59 PM
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. There are plenty videos around of women doing burros. Same as men doing burros and goats. None of them screamed rape or said they wouldn't bump dat a$$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. There are plenty videos around of women doing burros. Same as men doing burros and goats. None of them screamed rape or said they wouldn't bump dat a$$. Can you PROVE they consent? No you can't, so sorry it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CeriseRose
on
Tue 03/26/13 06:22 PM
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. Animals CAN show consent. Pardon the graphic... but have you ever seen a dog hump a man's leg? I'd say, that's more than consent... that's aggressive initiation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. Animals CAN show consent. CeriseRose. You are very right. That's how the donkey show works. If the donkey didn't get turned on, there would be no show. Make human-animal marriage legal and I'd bet it passes like greased lightning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. There are plenty videos around of women doing burros. Same as men doing burros and goats. None of them screamed rape or said they wouldn't bump dat a$$. Can you PROVE they consent? No you can't, so sorry it doesn't work. just because your moral standards are lower than most peoples doesn't mean everyone has to think like you... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. Animals CAN show consent. Pardon the graphic... but have you ever seen a dog hump a man's leg? I'd say, that's more than consent... that's aggressive initiation. They can BUT can they always? That's the whole thing, you can't prove it in EVERY case, so it's not the same argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the pro-homosexers want this thing to pass, have them include bestiality in the works. Man-man, woman-woman, man-goat, woman-burro. Same moral aptitude. again BULL. Unless you can prove without doubt an animal can consent to such a thing like a human being can, the argument has NO basis in reality whatsoever. NONE, they are NOT the same thing. Same would go for pedophilia too.....god how I love the extreme arguments.....truly. There are plenty videos around of women doing burros. Same as men doing burros and goats. None of them screamed rape or said they wouldn't bump dat a$$. Can you PROVE they consent? No you can't, so sorry it doesn't work. just because your moral standards are lower than most peoples doesn't mean everyone has to think like you... How is defending AGAINST the idea of bestiality being put on the same level as same sex marriage mean I have lower moral standards? that's bass ackwards! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i take it you don't believe in the voting system? you can cry and call discrimination all you want, but the majority said no... If a state decided to vote to ban interracial marriages, would you be ok with it? whether i'm ok with it or not has nothing to do with it...if it's the law, then i have to accept it...just as you should Way to dance around answering the question. Let's try it this way. Interracial marriages were once banned. Should they have just accepted it, rather than fighting to get the law changed? agian, it doesn't matter what my opinion is, i'm just one of many that vote on issues such as these... Well, you just told me that you accept the law and I should, too. So then you're saying those who fought for interracial marriages to be legal should have just accepted the law and not fought for it. no, what i said was you vote for what you want, and i'll do the same... interracial marriages is irrelevant and has no meaning to this thread... if it (gay marriage) ever comes to vote in texas, i'll vote no But her point is you said that if something is the law you have to accept it, so the question is very relevant, as the idea is you'd go by any law they'd say is law no matter how unjust. Is this or is this not true? Not a hard question. BTW that attitude is basically saying: "here take my rights, I don't want them, they are yours to control" I'll take freedom thank you......... what a rebel...
Yeah I am, try it sometime, maybe you'll find that backbone you're missing....... and way to dodge the argument.......again. what argument? i know where you stand, and you know where i stand... it doesn't matter who's right or wrong here, our opinions are opposite... whats the big deal? the argument about the law??? you never once gave me or sing a straight answer and bull it doesn't matter, when you are trying to actively take away the rights of a group of people who don't have what you do simply because of whom they love, it DOES matter. who's taking away who's rights? no matter how this gay marriage thing goes, someones rights are getting trampled on.. i think my right to live in a country that has some moral values left is worth voting for... |
|
|
|
|
