I think the point lowing is making is that liberals hate freedom.
Fuck Israel
Nope liberal love freedom, they love the freedom to take anything that does not belong to them and make it their own, out of "fairness" and if you resist that, you are "close minded", "selfish", "evil" and a "racist".Dilbert_X wrote:
I think the point lowing is making is that liberals hate freedom.
In your opinion.
Umm Jaekus, you do realize that the " you're generalizing" comment was meant to be ironic and hypocritical right? I mean I don't mind you using my quotes, I am flattered that you constantly think of me, I just wanna be sure you knew the context of it. If I ever find something you said worth quoting in a sig I will be sure to return the favor.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-30 05:58:41)
Hindsight is often a wonderful thing, isn't it?
lol no, actually the records pretty much confirms that, the left DOES want to take shit away from those that have in the name of "fairness" and the other comments are the opinions of the left not mine, examples can be found all over the place.Jaekus wrote:
In your opinion.
There's always a counter argument.
Whatever that means, but you run with it.Jaekus wrote:
Hindsight is often a wonderful thing, isn't it?
According to your OP and its headline you challenged the need for a law that gave gay people special rights ... after it have been established that your concern with special rights wasn't a special right at all you now claim that you simply WONDER if it will be challenged ...lowing wrote:
I am well aware of that Varegg, which is why law is challenged in court every single day, because the spirit of the law and text, as well as the interpretation of the text are different things. It is also why I kept saying I WONDER if this law will be challenged. I said nothing was in stones nor was there any outrage over this law by me. The real problem is, you and others can't get over that it was ME that was asking instead of the question being asked so you all go into instant defense/attack mode. Kinda funny really.Varegg wrote:
The spirit and intention of the law and the text are two very different things lowing ...
If the law opens up for same sex marriage it doesn't matter if you are gay or not ... or do you think that they have to fuck infront of the judge to prove they are gay?
It really doesn't matter what you think lowing, the text in the bill is what matters ... so it's not special rights when the rights are equalled out so everyone has the basic same rights to get married.
So if has nothing to do with you making the thread but rather how you made it, how you angled it and expressed your opinion ...
Kinda funny really
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
For example?lowing wrote:
Nope liberal love freedom, they love the freedom to take anything that does not belong to them and make it their own, out of "fairness" and if you resist that, you are "close minded", "selfish", "evil" and a "racist".Dilbert_X wrote:
I think the point lowing is making is that liberals hate freedom.
Fuck Israel
I stand by what I said, the INTENT and the SPIRIT of this new law is legislation for gays, there is no denying that Varegg, and yes, I wonder if some smart ass straight guys that find a way where marriage benefits them will go unopposed by the govt.Varegg wrote:
According to your OP and its headline you challenged the need for a law that gave gay people special rights ... after it have been established that your concern with special rights wasn't a special right at all you now claim that you simply WONDER if it will be challenged ...lowing wrote:
I am well aware of that Varegg, which is why law is challenged in court every single day, because the spirit of the law and text, as well as the interpretation of the text are different things. It is also why I kept saying I WONDER if this law will be challenged. I said nothing was in stones nor was there any outrage over this law by me. The real problem is, you and others can't get over that it was ME that was asking instead of the question being asked so you all go into instant defense/attack mode. Kinda funny really.Varegg wrote:
The spirit and intention of the law and the text are two very different things lowing ...
If the law opens up for same sex marriage it doesn't matter if you are gay or not ... or do you think that they have to fuck infront of the judge to prove they are gay?
It really doesn't matter what you think lowing, the text in the bill is what matters ... so it's not special rights when the rights are equalled out so everyone has the basic same rights to get married.
So if has nothing to do with you making the thread but rather how you made it, how you angled it and expressed your opinion ...
Kinda funny really
lol you need an example of the left's agenda. go google it. google Obama and fairness and neighborlinessDilbert_X wrote:
For example?lowing wrote:
Nope liberal love freedom, they love the freedom to take anything that does not belong to them and make it their own, out of "fairness" and if you resist that, you are "close minded", "selfish", "evil" and a "racist".Dilbert_X wrote:
I think the point lowing is making is that liberals hate freedom.
I think its pretty fair that you let a black man be President.
Fuck Israel
It's not so much particularly for gays lowing other than to even it all out so everyone has the same right to marry whoever they want ... if that means two straight guys for example marry eachother I couldn't care less ...lowing wrote:
I stand by what I said, the INTENT and the SPIRIT of this new law is legislation for gays, there is no denying that Varegg, and yes, I wonder if some smart ass straight guys that find a way where marriage benefits them will go unopposed by the govt.
What's sad is that you need a bill to ensure equal rights!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I couldn't care less either if 2 straight guys marry, question is will the govt., and yes, this law is for gays, lets get real.Varegg wrote:
It's not so much particularly for gays lowing other than to even it all out so everyone has the same right to marry whoever they want ... if that means two straight guys for example marry eachother I couldn't care less ...lowing wrote:
I stand by what I said, the INTENT and the SPIRIT of this new law is legislation for gays, there is no denying that Varegg, and yes, I wonder if some smart ass straight guys that find a way where marriage benefits them will go unopposed by the govt.
What's sad is that you need a bill to ensure equal rights!
and isn't that what a govt. is supposed to do, ensure equal rights through the rule of law? How is this somehow despicable to you?
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-30 07:18:28)
what does being black have to do with anything? I opposed Clinton as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
I think its pretty fair that you let a black man be President.
Quite correct lowing, it's the governments job to ensure equal rights ... but have you asked yourself why it wasn't equal to begin with? Hence why it's sad that they have equal rights now in 2011 and not from the beginning.lowing wrote:
I couldn't care less either if 2 straight guys marry, question is will the govt., and yes, this law is for gays, lets get real.Varegg wrote:
It's not so much particularly for gays lowing other than to even it all out so everyone has the same right to marry whoever they want ... if that means two straight guys for example marry eachother I couldn't care less ...lowing wrote:
I stand by what I said, the INTENT and the SPIRIT of this new law is legislation for gays, there is no denying that Varegg, and yes, I wonder if some smart ass straight guys that find a way where marriage benefits them will go unopposed by the govt.
What's sad is that you need a bill to ensure equal rights!
and isn't that what a govt. is supposed to do, ensure equal rights through the rule of law? How is this somehow despicable to you?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It was equal to begin with. NO ONE could marry same sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation. If you do not believe that law did not include everyone, then how can you believe this new law does? The govt. did not distinguish between straight people or homosexuals. that is a fact. Now we will see if that same stance holds true. Will the govt. allow ANYONE to marry same sex?Varegg wrote:
Quite correct lowing, it's the governments job to ensure equal rights ... but have you asked yourself why it wasn't equal to begin with? Hence why it's sad that they have equal rights now in 2011 and not from the beginning.lowing wrote:
I couldn't care less either if 2 straight guys marry, question is will the govt., and yes, this law is for gays, lets get real.Varegg wrote:
It's not so much particularly for gays lowing other than to even it all out so everyone has the same right to marry whoever they want ... if that means two straight guys for example marry eachother I couldn't care less ...
What's sad is that you need a bill to ensure equal rights!
and isn't that what a govt. is supposed to do, ensure equal rights through the rule of law? How is this somehow despicable to you?
What I have been asking myself is, why does the govt. feel they need to make laws regarding personal lives, that do not affect other citizens, period.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-30 07:58:07)
lowing wrote:
It was equal to begin with. NO ONE could marry same sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation. If you do not believe that law did not include everyone, then how can you believe this new law does? The govt. did not distinguish between straight people or homosexuals. that is a fact. Now we will see if that same stance holds true. Will the govt. allow ANYONE to marry same sex?Varegg wrote:
Quite correct lowing, it's the governments job to ensure equal rights ... but have you asked yourself why it wasn't equal to begin with? Hence why it's sad that they have equal rights now in 2011 and not from the beginning.lowing wrote:
I couldn't care less either if 2 straight guys marry, question is will the govt., and yes, this law is for gays, lets get real.
and isn't that what a govt. is supposed to do, ensure equal rights through the rule of law? How is this somehow despicable to you?
What I have been asking myself is, why does the govt. feel they need to make laws regarding personal lives, that do not affect other citizens, period.
So excluding 10% of the populace is equality?lowing wrote:
It was equal to begin with. NO ONE could marry same sex, regardless of race or sexual orientation. If you do not believe that law did not include everyone, then how can you believe this new law does? The govt. did not distinguish between straight people or homosexuals. that is a fact. Now we will see if that same stance holds true. Will the govt. allow ANYONE to marry same sex?Varegg wrote:
Quite correct lowing, it's the governments job to ensure equal rights ... but have you asked yourself why it wasn't equal to begin with? Hence why it's sad that they have equal rights now in 2011 and not from the beginning.lowing wrote:
I couldn't care less either if 2 straight guys marry, question is will the govt., and yes, this law is for gays, lets get real.
and isn't that what a govt. is supposed to do, ensure equal rights through the rule of law? How is this somehow despicable to you?
What I have been asking myself is, why does the govt. feel they need to make laws regarding personal lives, that do not affect other citizens, period.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...Kmar wrote:
10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
actually, the scientific community is a little divided in their opinion on this matter. "choice" is also pretty hard do define. besides, i don't think it should matter at all if it's a choice or genetically - or otherwise - defined condition.Varegg wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...Kmar wrote:
10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-07-01 01:01:28)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
(y)Shahter wrote:
actually, the scientific community is a little divided in their opinion on this matter. "choice" is also pretty hard do define. besides, i don't think it should matter at all if it's a choice or genetically - or otherwise - defined condition.Varegg wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...Kmar wrote:
10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I know science is divided concerning being or getting gay depending on enviromental issues etc ... but ask any gay person and he or she will tell you that any same sex relationship felt right and the opposite felt wrong ... they are quite consistant in their answers no matter what science says ... the big if here is actually bisexual people, that baffles science more than gay preference ...Shahter wrote:
actually, the scientific community is a little divided in their opinion on this matter. "choice" is also pretty hard do define. besides, i don't think it should matter at all if it's a choice or genetically - or otherwise - defined condition.Varegg wrote:
Not sure what you're getting at but being gay is not a choice ...Kmar wrote:
10% that can not marry who they want based on their sexual persuasion... 90% does.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................