blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM

blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM

blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I only popped back in here to reference someone in another thread to something I’d said here and I’ve got to say showing up over 48 hours after a thread has ceased to be commented on when it’s off the main page just to launch a couple more ad hominem spitballs in defense of your tired old one trick is the mark of a brave person who’s sure they won an argument. I have a funny feeling you’ll be back again so if you want the last word you can probably have it.

You’re equating homosexuality with pedophilia?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

You really need to stop being an idiot.

Saying that Group A deserves the same rights as Group B is NOT equating Group A with Group B.

How stupid can you be?

for anyone to show me what harm is going to be done by legalizing gay marriage and so far no one has presented me anything but red herring arguments

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM

You haven’t shown any harm that True Marriage Equality will cause – except for red herring arguments.

You’ve not convinced me of or won anything.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Actually, I’ve done both. You just don’t want to admit it.

You wouldn’t argue the position you’re taking because you don’t really believe it yourself.

Anyone that reads this thread will see that I most certainly provided argument that is quite superior to yours.

Stop pretending that my accurate descriptions of you were all I was writing. It makes you look even more stupid than you are.

Divorce does not have anything to do with Marriage? LOL.

Divorce destroys every single one of the arguments you MIGHT HAVE HAD.

Divorce does nothing to my arguments because divorce is a separate issue from gay marriage.

Marriage will have nothing to do with LOWERING DISEASE RATES. That is based on limiting the number of sexual partners you have and spending the time verifying that your partner is disease free. Of course, regressives like yourself destroyed that aspect of our culture.

Even if I accept what you say here as true then if that’s been destroyed then it’s been destroyed and there’s no more harm that can be done.

Marriage will not increase monogamy either. If you love someone, you will be monogamous with them. If not, you won’t. Marriage is no restriction on this.

But since we’re talking about incentives and since you believe the prospect of getting gay married will be incentive enough for otherwise heterosexual people to change their orientation then the prospect of losing the fruits of their labor is incentive against infidelity.

But, celebrating things incentivize people to be a part of that activity. Giving special privilege also does so. That is the whole point of the celebration and the privilege. They are there to make others want to be a part of it. In fact, that is the ENTIRE REASON FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES.

Your commitment to your sexual orientation must be far weaker than mine if the prospect of having a wedding and paying the marriage penalty is enough to get you to consider going on over to the other side.

So, that means your goal is to increase the number of practicing gays.

I couldn’t do this even if I wanted to.

More disease fewer babies. That is your GOAL. You can deny all you want, but it is just a simple fact that is true.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Something isn’t true just because you say it is.

For the record I will admit to being bigoted to no end against pedophiles.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why would it be bigotry?

Why are you even bringing up divorce? It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Divorce does not have anything to do with Marriage? LOL.

Divorce destroys every single one of the arguments you MIGHT HAVE HAD.

Marriage will have nothing to do with LOWERING DISEASE RATES. That is based on limiting the number of sexual partners you have and spending the time verifying that your partner is disease free. Of course, regressives like yourself destroyed that aspect of our culture.

Marriage will not increase monogamy either. If you love someone, you will be monogamous with them. If not, you won’t. Marriage is no restriction on this.

But, celebrating things incentivize people to be a part of that activity. Giving special privilege also does so. That is the whole point of the celebration and the privilege. They are there to make others want to be a part of it. In fact, that is the ENTIRE REASON FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES. So, that means your goal is to increase the number of practicing gays.

More disease fewer babies. That is your GOAL. You can deny all you want, but it is just a simple fact that is true.

Well, there you go. Since people do not choose and it is natural, you are advocating for pedophiles to be granted their rights?

Still waiting to see that gay gene evidence.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:18 PM

You’re equating homosexuality with pedophilia? Man, you’re just hitting everything, aren’t you?

For the record I will admit to being bigoted to no end against pedophiles.

If it causes harm you cannot just change it.
It will cause harm. Debate over.

You cannot, it is impossible to do so, prove it does not cause harm. Harm has already been done.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM

LO f’n L!

I’ve been asking, almost begging, for anyone to show me what harm is going to be done by legalizing gay marriage and so far no one has presented me anything but red herring arguments, and a fallacious argument is not evidence for anything except a person who doesn’t have a good point.

You think legalizing gay marriage will mean there will be more gay people? News flash: sexual orientation isn’t exactly something you choose. Do you remember when you made the choice to be attracted to women and not men? There will still be just as many gay people once it’s legalized as there are now.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Well, there you go. Since people do not choose and it is natural, you are advocating for pedophiles to be granted their rights?

Still waiting to see that gay gene evidence.

What argument of yours do you think I’ve made?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If it causes harm you cannot just change it.
It will cause harm. Debate over.

You cannot, it is impossible to do so, prove it does not cause harm. Harm has already been done.

I am still looking where you proved this to be the case, or anyone for that matter. You say it as if it were some well established fact, but being monogamous does not require marriage and marriage does not require monogamy. Due to the fact that the progressives and idiots like you made divorce same day no questions asked, I tend to think even you would understand that this argument is retarded. Is it really that far above your pay grade to comprehend?

Why are you even bringing up divorce? It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

What the the gays and you are asking for are special privilege, because they want to increase the number of participants in the gay culture. That will INCREASE the disease rate in our society and lower the birth rate in our society.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

You think legalizing gay marriage will mean there will be more gay people? News flash: sexual orientation isn’t exactly something you choose. Do you remember when you made the choice to be attracted to women and not men? There will still be just as many gay people once it’s legalized as there are now.

Yet he got you to make my argument. Being a hypocrite though, you just ignore that fact.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM

What argument of yours do you think I’ve made?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Oh boy! Someone new with yet more red herring arguments! Am I the only person on the right who passed Logic 101?

Gay marriage itself is irrelevant to the examples you cited involving the city governments of Boston, Philadelphia and New York. If those three city governments were being critical of Chick-Fil-A because they also support gun ownership or the freedom of speech then by your logic gun ownership and freedom of speech are real problems that cause harm and whose legality should be questioned. Your entire argument is fallacious.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Yet he got you to make my argument. Being a hypocrite though, you just ignore that fact.

blink on March 1, 2013 at 8:33 AM

blink on March 1, 2013 at 8:35 AM

*sigh*

You’ve not convinced me of or won anything. I think what I thought from the beginning; it was your stubborn refusal to say little more than ad hominem attacks instead of trying to actually intellectually engage me on the issue that lead to a day of your yelling “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” with your fingers in your ears.

But your shtick got old years ago. You wouldn’t argue the position you’re taking because you don’t really believe it yourself. It’s sad and pathetic.

Yes, like every decent person I’m in favor of a more inclusive legal definition of marriage.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:40 AM

Actually, as I just pointed out, gay-sex marriage supporters are antireligious bigots who openly abuse governmental power in blatant violation of the First Amendment to suppress, punish, and destroy peoples’ religious liberty, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

So no, you’re not a decent person. You’re a bigot. More precisely, you’re a homophobic bigot who is attempting to use MY sexual orientation to carry out YOUR hate campaigns against churches, religious beliefs, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and other Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

You have set out to deliberately damage society, and you are blaming it on me and trying to cloak it in the guise of “plantation kindness”, much as your Obama Party ancestors justified slavery on the basis of protecting the noble savages.

I do not know where. I told you, if I had good evidence that legalization of gay marriage would cause real, tangible harm (beyond the sensitivities of homophobes just don’t like gay people) then I would oppose it. If it has been shown throughout history that gay marriage causes harm then show me where in history that has been the case.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM

With pleasure.

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

Violation of First Amendment rights by government entities, caused solely by gay-sex marriage and support of gay-sex marriage.

More:

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

Illegal harassment of business and abuse of governmental position and power by gay-sex marriage supporters and gay-sex married individuals.

And:

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

That is the EEOC, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, stating that gay-sex marriage should in all cases trump the First Amendment and religious liberty and that government should openly discriminate against religious beliefs in favor of forcing gay-sex marriage.

These are real, live examples of how gay-sex marriage has ALREADY damaged society. Gay-sex marriage is ALREADY violating peoples’ rights, ALREADY causing open governmental discrimination, and ALREADY causing social damage.

Those are facts. Your attempt to deny them proves your hatred and bigotry.

And society does benefit from gay marriage. Lower disease rates amongst the gay population that’s going to be there whether gay marriage is legal or not. We’ve talked about this already.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM

I am still looking where you proved this to be the case, or anyone for that matter. You say it as if it were some well established fact, but being monogamous does not require marriage and marriage does not require monogamy. Due to the fact that the progressives and idiots like you made divorce same day no questions asked, I tend to think even you would understand that this argument is retarded. Is it really that far above your pay grade to comprehend?

What the the gays and you are asking for are special privilege, because they want to increase the number of participants in the gay culture. That will INCREASE the disease rate in our society and lower the birth rate in our society.

Do you support True Marriage Equality?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:44 AM

Hilarious that you would even ask this.

OF COURSE I SUPPORT TRUE MARRIAGE EQUALITY!

I’M not a bigot. I support giving equal rights to everyone – even those that bigots find icky because social stigmas are still attached to them.

Yes, like every decent person I’m in favor of a more inclusive legal definition of marriage.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:40 AM

Only a bigoted hypocrite would try to claim this while simultaneously insisting that the strictest of contract law constraints continue to be used as a barrier to legal definitions of marriage – instead of making changes that would accommodate people that you find icky to be able to receive their rights.

It appears my description of marriage as a contract (and thus subject to the normal bounds of contract law) is the root of the disagreement.

Yes, your bigoted insistence that all legal definitions of marriage going forward must continue to be constrained by the strict bounds of contract law is completely stupid. How are you not humiliated by this insistence?

If in your mind marriage doesn’t even rise to the level of a simple contract then that limitation goes away and then sure, marry the Eiffel Tower if you want to.

So, finally, it seems as if you are willing to support True Marriage Equality.

Someday you’ll tell both stories. You’ll tell about being swayed after losing the argument to someone about gay marriage, and you’ll tell about being swayed after losing the argument to blink about True Marriage Equality.

My time was not wasted. You were quite retarded, but I have finally gained another supporter for TME.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Do you support True Marriage Equality?

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:37 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

I’ve made an effort to try to engage you on this but you seem more interested in launching an endless string of ad hominem attacks than you do in actually trying to discuss this like adults (and if you are in fact still a child that would explain a lot and I apologize for trying to hold you to a standard you’re not ready for yet).

Yes, like every decent person I’m in favor of a more inclusive legal definition of marriage. If I wade through your series of attacks and attempt to take what you say at face value it appears my description of marriage as a contract (and thus subject to the normal bounds of contract law) is the root of the disagreement. If in your mind marriage doesn’t even rise to the level of a simple contract then that limitation goes away and then sure, marry the Eiffel Tower if you want to.

where he got his notions of what’s required for a valid contract.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM

OK, Retard.

Apparently, I’m going to have to spell it out for you.

I’ve NEVER provided you with any notions regarding what’s required for a valid contract.

YOU have stupidly assumed that all requirements for a valid contract are required to recognize a marriage. YOU ARE AN IDIOT FOR MAKING THIS STUPID ASSUMPTION.

Again, marriage needs to be changed to accommodate certain groups – even if you hate them.

That’s also why I think he knows he’s in over his head.

You are hilarious. You are by far the dimmest bulb I have ever debated about this.

You can’t have a contract with a blow-up doll

YOU DON’T NEED TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A BLOW-UP DOLL, RETARD!

so that makes it impossible to marry one given the requirements of contract law

How are you not incredibly embarrassed for making such a stupid comment???

You already favor changing the definition of marriage.

More talk about what I think instead of you taking and defending a position of your own…

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM

You really are retarded.

My point is that you are already ok with changing the definition of marriage. So, this definition can be altered to accommodate the groups that you hate.

You already favor changing many of the constraints placed on allowing participants to marry.

I’ve made that pretty clear as well.

You really are retarded.

My point is that you are already ok with changing many constraints placed on allowing participants to marry. So, constraints can be altered to accommodate the groups that you hate?

Do you need more help, Retard?