Uh Oh

[ConHog]

The point is, if you feel the law is wrong, work to have it legally repealed. But back to OCA's original point - the 14th, has nothing to do with this. You feeling the law is wrong and the law being unconstitutional are 2 different things, and many gay marriage supporters use the 14th to show this unconstitutionality.

Check the thread Jim, I said I think on page 1 that the 14th had nothing to do with it. And yes big surprise SOME gays are as stupid as other people and don''t even understand what they should be arguing about.

Look at that idiot WindSong the last time she was involved in a thread discussing gay marriage; I had you within an inch of agreeing with me and here she came in screaming that I was wrong and that what I proposed wasn't good enough even though it would have given her EXACTLY what she purportedly wants all b/c oh big surprise she's an idiot and doesn't understand logic.

The fact is though, the idiots are wrong, AND the fact that the 14th is irrelevant to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that marriage shouldn't be defined by the government , be it local, state, or federal.

[jimnyc]

Check the thread Jim, I said I think on page 1 that the 14th had nothing to do with it. And yes big surprise SOME gays are as stupid as other people and don''t even understand what they should be arguing about.

Look at that idiot WindSong the last time she was involved in a thread discussing gay marriage; I had you within an inch of agreeing with me and here she came in screaming that I was wrong and that what I proposed wasn't good enough even though it would have given her EXACTLY what she purportedly wants all b/c oh big surprise she's an idiot and doesn't understand logic.

The fact is though, the idiots are wrong, AND the fact that the 14th is irrelevant to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that marriage shouldn't be defined by the government , be it local, state, or federal.

Then I suppose we could have avoided 14 pages of "debating" here then? Sounds like from your post right here that you agree with OCA's opening statement, but your opening post speaks a little differently.

[OCA]

Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.

No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.

[ConHog]

Allowing polygamy is a LOT more than just someone's sexual desires in the bedroom. If 1 man wants 10 women in their bedroom, more power to him. But it crosses the line, IMO, when we allow him to MARRY all of those women, and then have children raised in such an environment.

Hey, if you can make a valid argument that all children raised in polygamist homes are in danger then that is an argument I'm willing to look at and judge, but honestly I think it should be judged on a case by case basis, just as with heterosexual households.

[OCA]

Not cool at all. DS72 has shared information with us, and not shoved it down our throats. I think it's inappropriate to use his father in the midst of ANY argument, whether respectfully or not.

I think it was appropriate, his opinion is tainted on the issue because of that.

[ConHog]

No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.

Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.

[ConHog]

Then I suppose we could have avoided 14 pages of "debating" here then? Sounds like from your post right here that you agree with OCA's opening statement, but your opening post speaks a little differently.

I've been consistent on my stance on gay marriage for quite awhile Jim, the 14th has nothing to do with it. My only point in THIS thread has been that the 14th having nothing to do with it does not mean it's okay to outlaw gay marriage.

[OCA]

You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.

That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.

This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.

But even if two queers get married the state should not be forced to recognize that marriage and should not be forced to extend any marriage benefits to them.

[OCA]

Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.

I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.

[ConHog]

But even if two queers get married the state should not be forced to recognize that marriage and should not be forced to extend any marriage benefits to them.

The state shouldn't recognize marriage at ALL. You want benefit "rights" sign a contract. I don't give a shit if you sign your SS benefits over to an elephant, they are YOUR benefits, do with them as you wish. Why do you care what others do with theirs?

[ConHog]

I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.

Oh good grief

[OCA]

You have the right to pursuit, but that HARDLY means you have a right to the things you are pursuing. Gay marriage or even being gay - have NOTHING to do with the "pursuit of happiness"

And that goes to the underbelly of the whole "gay marriage" debate, queers don't really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage brings.

If they just truely wanted to be left alone then this wouldn't be an issue but thats not really it, right?

[OCA]

Oh good grief

They can't be privatized? The government is the only entity that can build and maintain roadways?

[ConHog]

And that goes to the underbelly of the whole "gay marriage" debate, queers don't really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage brings.

If they just truely wanted to be left alone then this wouldn't be an issue but thats not really it, right?

That's obviously going to be true for some, but for all? Hardly. In that sense gays are no different than any other group of people.

As an example of each WindSong obviously wants to shove gay in everyone's face, she's a disgusting example of a gay. FJ on the other hand is low key, and just wants to be left alone to live his life. hahaha FJ you thought I was gonna let the other day slide

[jimnyc]

Hey, if you can make a valid argument that all children raised in polygamist homes are in danger then that is an argument I'm willing to look at and judge, but honestly I think it should be judged on a case by case basis, just as with heterosexual households.

Then ANY lifestyle choice should be allowed, so long as others aren't harmed, and it doesn't harm the children, correct?