In California, homosexuals enjoy the "same rights and responsibilities" as heterosexual married couples in the form of civil unions. I believe the state has the right to specify who can or cannot be given a state license, in this case a marriage license, and if the voters agree to license's particular specifications, that's that. How is separating homosexuals "marriages" into civil unions any more or less discrimintory than separating naturalized citizens from natural born citizens?
@poidog776 No same sex couples do NOT get the same rights as married straight couples. Where are you getting your facts from?
And what if gays do get a civil union, they can call it 'marriage or we were "married" afterwards and it wont make one fucking bit of difference to anyone?! Here in Canada gay marriage is allowed? How is it wrong?
People act like marriage is the great invitation to monogamy. I should know it's not because I had sex with two married men. There are swingers all over the place in STRAIGHT marriages and some are childless, the arguments that NOM uses can't ever be accepted in court--I'd love to see Maggie justify her reasons in court, she's never done it because she knows she can't do it
ALL states will no longer attach the word "marriage" to any civil union contract.. if a male and female want a "marriage" certificate they must get that from a church..
I have always wondered, if the scotus had not struck down the interracial marriage bans at the time, how long it would have been before the states would have done it themselves
@thames5 said "If the scotus had not struck down the interracial marriage bans at the time, how long it would have been before the states would have done it themselves?"
This excellent question flirts with the problem of defining equal protection under the law. 100 years ago, the question of interracial marriage was settled. African-Americans and Causasians could not marry (but Native Americans and Caucasians COULD marry - Interesting!!!). 30 years ago, it was also settled - but opposite!
You do not get a say in who I love. You do not get a say in what school I attend. You do not get a say in where I sit on the bus. You do not get a say what lunch counter I eat at. You do not get a say in what water fountian I drink from. AND YOU DO NOT GET A SAY IN WHO I MARRY.
Do you ever wonder why the so called expert on "marriage" the one and only Maggie Gallagher is never seen with her husband? If marriage is so great...why is he absent? The reason is Maggie Gallagher is married to a black man. She is in an interracial marriage. She is ASHAMED of her interracial marriage and is afraid that the conservative bigots that support her ideology will STOP DONATING to her scam organization NOM. Need Oppressive Money! 40% goes directly into her pocket.
I admire the team effort,ladies,but nonetheless,there is no denying you all have collectively switched from ARDENT support of ssm to a creepy flirtation with tonestar disguised as assessing his mental condition.You're all like groupies crowding around a rockstar trying to see who will get to touch him first.Raps,as a married woman,you ought to know better,but than,you've never shown much knack for marital knowledge,have you?
@MrBACKWOODSPROPHET I think you meant to say there is no NEED to deny what is so blatantly a figment of your imagination. Perhaps fueled by your own love? Are you possibly projecting dear delusional?
But please, show a bit of backbone now. What's with the defeatist attitude? OF COURSE you are his type! Why, you are both insanely delusional even sharing the same delusions, you both love the same books, have the same views, posted the same fantasies and have been kissing up to each other! What's more, you have shown such simpering "defense" of him for hours now! How could you not be his type? Be bold hon!
@MrBACKWOODSPROPHET Dude, that line so fails. Way too heavy handed. You really don't get the principle do you? You try it here and I try to explain why it doesn't work. You try it on the other thread and Rap tries to explain to you why it doesn't work! Give it up already and try to develop your own style! This kind of "banter" isn't it!
Rap: Once cannot masturbate another. Idiot. I'll resist dragging your wonderful, "we talk to each other and share at bedtime" private marriage which you keep to yourself into this. LMFAO!!!!! ha ha ha!!!! You, the queen of the fruit-flies talking about creepy. The unmitigated gall. "You sicken me." Alec Baldwin (30 Rock).
As I recall,reddragon,you attempted to slap a "POI" label on the one calling himself "11 wombats."Not that I can blame you,with his hateful banter,but my point here is you slap it any dissenting view you find unsuitable,so don't try to limit this to us "religious" types....
Uhh, how about "no." You do realize the entire constitution is set up expressly to prevent majority tyranny? The electoral college, the election of senators, the entire bill of right, the amendment process to the constitution...
The framers were well aware of how the last few examples of democracy fared and went out of their way to prevent it. Hence why there's an entire Federalist Paper assuring people such abuses would not happen.
Judge thanatos just invalidated the vote of the people. What a super hero in our midst. The people said NO. I say NO. The law says NO to same sex marriage. What part of NO don't you understand.
Marriage is and always was defined and culturally accepted as being between a man and a woman. It is not something that can be read a different way, not even by activist judges
The rulings of a few extremely liberal activist courts and their judges in the USA doesn't change what marriage is globally. Many countries will not allow this sickness to spread to their jurisdictions.
The problem for your activist judges is two fold and reveals their agenda;
1. The authors of the Constitution never meant it to be abused to change the marriage institution.
2. Your judges will read-down well recognized human rights like the right of the child to know both its mother and father and instead try to create new rights that we know don't exist, like same-sex marriage.
1. The authors intention for the Constitution was that it would adapt and change for each generation. That's why the only specific policies in the entire constitution were about slavery (look how disastrous that turned out to be) while the rest is a series of procedures and a list of rights. But then again how, exactly, is a document written by committee supposed to have some sort of original intent? The closest you can come are the federalist papers which are most assuredly not on your side.
By your theory ... "Hi I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you." NO, the people do not want their inalienable rights redefined and they don't want marriage redefined for absolutely everyone to satisfy a noisy minority.
No, people want their inalienable rights expanded. That's the arch of human history.
You, in fact, were openly just now making up rights out of thin air.
What the "people" want is irrelevant on the subject of rights. That's what makes rights rights. They apply equally to all citizens.
And the concept of it "redefining marriage" is just ridiculous. Even being very conservative, marriage's current definition only dates to the California Family Law Act, it's a little over thirty years old.
Actually the definition of marriage goes back hundreds of years and thousands of years in many cultures. And you want to change a cultural norm by hiding behind a specious argument about equality and rights, when history and reason already give you the answer. But keep trying to intellectualize your campaign and someone might be gullible enough to swallow it.
No it doesn't. It actually is far more recent than the California Family Law Act, but that's the point where marriage was unalterably redefined into something unrecognizable from what it was before. If you bothered to read up on this sort of stuff you would know how bad your argument is. But I do love the anti-intellectual swipe. Your side is losing because of that: you ware you stupidity as a badge of honor.
I didn't make up a right that doesn't exist. You did. So, yeah, you are projecting.
Many indigenous cultures had places within their communities for homosexuals.
But since you are bringing up marriage from thousands of years ago, you do realize that it was nothing more than a way to increase wealth, right? The woman was handed to a man for a dowry, and the woman then became the property of that man. She had no rights.
Is this the nobility of ancient marriage of which you argue? Or are you merely part of the xtian taliban that want to take us back to the middle ages?
Well if you are married and love your husband so then why are you arguing with someone on the internet. Shouldn't you be spending time with him and having your conversations with him not me. Clearly you have a communication problem and that marriage wont last if you continue to live your life and passions vicariously through Youtube. Go hug your husband.
Wow! Look at you fail. This is essentially an admission you can't back up your own points with anything.
Instead you chose to weave an elaborate fantasy life about Raps based on... well nothing. Actually less than nothing as you have to actively work to figure a way to Raps not loving her husband. It's an attempt to redirect the conversation from the objective which you know you can't win (you claimed Scallia of all people kowtowed to a liberal agenda), to the subjective where things get messy.
The Youtube debates on marriage are typified by calls for references to studies and the like. Quite frankly, this is an exercise for you to go to the library to make those discoveries for yourself but you wont because you have an ideology to promote and project. You know what marriage is and always has been. Procreation and the plight of children is reason enough not to countenance same-sex marriage.
Well yes, they are. Because through studies we know the cause and effect of things. Without them, we have only bigotry and fear of the unknown.
Quite frankly, I don't think you have any studies to reference. You just pulled something out of your ass and called it a fact. Otherwise you'd back up your "reputable" studies - something you can't seem to do.
SSM will not endanger the plight of children, and procreation is not a condition of marriage.
WOW! Nice attempt at goading. You are completely dodging because you know you can't actually back up your own statements.
I've already told you I could probably fill ten posts with studies, I have access to over a hundred research databases containing material from over a thousand peer-reviewed journals. You have nothing, and are trying to weasel out of it.
Oh, and Scalia already killed your procreation argument, and obviously there is no plight of children, since you can't produce one.
LOL - still on the ol' "activist judge" leg, are you? Equality is not an agenda. It's a right for all.
The authors of the constitution likely never gave gay marriage a second thought.
A child can be brought up beautifully by ssm couples. This has been proven. Merely having a man and a woman in the fold does not guarantee a well balanced child.
And there you are being all wrong again. SSM is a right in several countries and so far, 5 states.
You said, "Merely having a man and a woman in the fold does not guarantee a well balanced child.". Actually the child has every chance of growing up with a distorted identity and lack of balance. The natural family is the safest and best environment to raise children and you can't escape that fact.
The onus is on you to produce any reputable studies and not just advocacy research. Nearly all the reputable research is about the natural family. You know, a man and women meet, get married, generate children and raise them safely as their own flesh and blood. Try doing that with two penises!
No it's not. The onus is on your to prove your claims.
Nearly all the "reputable" research is about the natural family? Go on, tell us which "reputable" research you are referring to. Be specific.
And LOL at your "two penises" remark. Do you live in the outback where you are sheltered from the realities of the world? Dearie, many gay men are fathers. There are also many women willing to carry a baby for another. There is also adoption.
My goodness, you are a speshul snowflake, aren't you?
Uhh, you seem to be confused about the concept of "burden of proof." See, you made the statement in the first place, so you have to back it up in the second place, so we can refute it in the third place. You makes the statements you backs them up.
The "reputable research" generally means research where the (this is hilarious by the way as nature wants us to live in large social polyamerous groups) "natural" family is concerned does not study gay families. Can't extrapolate that to gay families.
You should probably learn to revise. Your actual statement here is that having a man and a woman as the parents of a child gives them every chance of growing up with a distorted identity and a lack of balance. Which is the only thing in this statement that is true.
What is a fact is that none of your concerns about gay parents are actually born out in any scientific studies. If I wanted to I could start a very lengthy list of studies proving how unsound these claims are for the next ten posts.
2. There is no right for a child to know it's biological parents. It simply doesn't exist. There is however a clear right to marriage. And you should be more worried about your judges. Antonin Scalia has already stated that the case against marriage equality is devoid of both principal and logic.
Must be the same kind of judge that ruled in Row v Wade to remove legal protection from the unborn human baby. Since then 60M+ human beings have been terminated. And you advocate a kind of superior view of the wisdom of these judges! Go figure! Actually everyone knows they are pandering to a liberal agenda.
Wow, look at you! Look at you wonder off the reservation completely. Using abortion as a red herring! Disgusting!
But more importantly you didn't even bother to check for a moment who Scallia is. Which makes this entire post hilariously moronic. Thanks for the perfect example of pure ignorance.
Nonsense...children have a natural inalienable right to know both their mom and their dad and this right they are born with predates the Constitution and other legal documents.
Bullshit. The Catholic Church has a vast history of removing children from an unwed mother and placing them in church run orphanages where they never knew their mothers or fathers.
Clearly their rights weren't recognized.
You're just attempting to invent facts that don't exist. Pulling them out of your ass doesn't make them facts.
Regardless of how badly the church and other groups may have behaved the following is still true ... children have a natural inalienable right to know both their mom and their dad and this right they are born with predates the Constitution and other legal documents.
This is hilarious. You keep making stuff up, and now that you have been called on it you are trying to get away with claiming that just because no one has ever recognized such a right exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist. Remember how you claimed judges were making rights up out of thin air? You've just done that right now. Your hypocrisy is monumental.
Sorry, but no where is there an inalienable right to know a persons biological parents. NO WHERE. It does not exist.
When two men or two women marry and engineer obtaining a child from another couple or donor, the child's right to know his/her natural (biological) parents has already been violated. This is a kind if insipid abuse of the child. When judges try to codify a right to abuse a child they reveal themselves even more so.
You mean that right that does not exist in any way, shape or form? Of course the alternative is the child does not exist in the first place. I sincerely hope you are pro-choice (but I know you are not), since your statements here show you want to actively go out and abort thousands of children.
Which is more abusive to a child: giving them a loving family or denying them existence?
Sorry, but the only child abuser around here is you.
When same sex partners who cannot procreate naturally with each other, then procure a child to live the homosexual lifestyle, without the balance of a mom and dad, they are treating the child as property and making a claim to someone elses child for their own selfish reasons.
Your continued (mis)use of "natural" and "homosexual lifestyle" shows a complete lack of knowledge of both homosexuality and nature. Much like your classification of Scalia as a liberal shows your lack of knowledge about basic civics. (Not to mention showing you couldn't care less about human dignity).
And your solution to this is to kill the child. How merciful of you.
Of course logically you are at a dead end, it isn't "someone else's child" (unless we are talking kidnapping, and we aren't).
No yours is a straw man argument, trying to project my argument back to me and misrepresenting what I said. OK, so you're in debating school and practice makes perfect...you need a lot of practice. How very gay...
How. Let's see you back up this logic train. Find me a strawman, then find me projecting, and finally find me misrepresenting you. Oh, and make sure that all those quotes are the actual definition of all those fallacies and not merely me pointing out the implications of your own ideology that you failed to consider, like how you are all in favor of abortion as long as it is restricted to the children of gays.
Face it, you've got no evidence to support a bunch of false claims.
Speaking of straw man arguments, you've tried arguing children have the right to know their parents - they don't.You've tried selling us on the idea that same sex couples cannot raise a child as well as heterosexual couples can - you're wrong.And you've tried calling Scalia an activist judge. Epic fail.
Apparently you are the one who needs to attend "debating school". The first thing you'd learn is attempting to project your lack of an argument on your opponent is the lamest trick in the book.
Since when is it a condition of marriage to procreate? I can't think of one instance where a couple must sign an agreement that they will have children before they are issued a marriage license.
By that argument, you just rendered post menopausal women unable to marry. Wow, talk about infringing on another persons rights!
Wow, you just slapped the face of single mothers and single fathers everywhere with that statement. Maybe they should have just aborted their child, hmmm?
Yeah some couples can't procreate but their marriage still forms the mother-father structure, i.e. they provide the model and the potential of a mother and a father and it is right to extend marriage to them for this reason ... and that is why we allow them to marry you dumb head.
A sterile couple can not form either model or potential for a mother or a father. But I'll let Scalia take the lead on this one, "what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,' ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Taking your approach to liberty, our society would degenerate and become a total free for all. That is why social norms, customs and culture exist, to regulate human society. Gay lifestyle advocates like you don't like the rules of society around marriage and nurturing children and so will use any excuse to try to change the laws at great cost to children and traditional marriage.
You can't escape biology and the reality of the child-parent bond. By your logic if I spat in your eye you would tell me it was raining. Face it, a gay fuck doesn't create children and marriage is about kids.
And you can't seem to escape logic.The parent child bond exists between the child and the parent who raises it.That is a fact.
Marriage isn't about kids.Like I said before, if marriage was about children, people would be forced to sign a contract agreeing to have children before being issued a marriage license. Marriage is a legal contract.
A gay fuck may not create children, but that's what adoption is for.
You're awfully unimaginative. I guess it's due to the fact you don't get out much.
Marriage is a NATURAL INSTITUTION. The potential for creating children in nature exists for the married man and woman. Your narrow definition of marriage as being just a license or a piece of paper shows how ignorant you are fuck head.
Marriage is absolutely 100% UNnatural. There is nothing natural about it. All apes (including humans) are designed to live in polyamerous groups, not in monogamous pairs. That's why throughout most of human history in most of human cultures polygamy has been the norm.
Yes, and the potential in nature for creating children in nature exists for the unmarried man and woman.
Sorry, but your attempt to define a legal construct as a natural construct shows how utterly brain-dead ignorant you are.
Well you can be a dumb ape but the rest of us humans choose to be intelligent about the serious aspects of life like marriage and raising kids. Go find a baboon and marry it, that's your right isn't it?
HA! You can't even offer up the most tepid refutation of what I said. I guess this is a good an admission as any that I am absolutely right about what marriage is.
Marriage is a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouse and the procreation and education of offspring.
Oh, this is fun! Let's take it apart one by one...
"Marriage is" so far so good...
"lifelong... whole of life" redundant and false. Thanks to the California Family Law Act we have something called divorce. Meaning your definition is already false.
"Mutual and exclusive fidelity" Another false statement. People cheat on their spouses all the time, it doesn't end the marriage nor is it illegal. Also many couples engage in swinging. So still false...
"Mutual consent" well that's actually true. Congratulations for accidentally stumbling onto something true.
"between a man and a woman" and we are right back to being false. Sorry, but plenty of places just struck that one from the list.
"good of the spouse" that... not so much. While there are laws about spousal abuse, generally the government takes a decidedly disinterested look towards the couple's happiness.
"procreation" Pure false. there is no requirement of procreation.
No, only someone living in the reality based community would have such a... reality based view of what marriage is.
Note how I quickly and easily falsified five out of your six claims about what married is. Falsified them in such a way, you aren't even attempting to mount an objective defense of them, but rather going back to subjective emotions.
Neither I, nor the government, nor reality, nor the institution of marriage cares about how you feel. So offer up some hard evidence.
You mean, living in the gay based community. No wonder you have a jaded view of traditional marriage. Anyway, tell it to the population of California who voted your judge-activated deformed marriage out of law.
'The law is the law' is your crutch for arguing for same-sick marriage. Now when the people vote to reaffirm traditional marriage and outlaw gay marriage, you don't respect the people's vote. What a hypocrite you are.
That's because 'the law is the law.' You do realize we are talking about civil marriage, do you not? Civil, as in the civil government?
And part of the civil government is a Constitution that guarantees majorities can never revoke minority rights by a vote of 50%+1. It was such an important concept that an entire amendment was added to the constitution to enshrine it. The fourteenth to be exact. Where "due process" and "equal protection" live. The constitution is the ultimate law. Idiot.
The Attorney General's re-writing of the Prop 8 wording was totally shambolic. There he re-framed the words in support of marriage as being between a man and woman to something quite different, the alleged removal of rights. Well, the AG and the Court don't give you these rights. You were either born with them or not. No new creation of rights. The State officials found "new rights" but the people corrected their activism. They voted NO; gay marriage is illegal and unconstitutional.
Wow, this has nothing to do with anything. Anything at all. It's a wonderful example of babbling uncontrollably and attempting to shift the conversation out of the dangerous territory, but has no connection to the discussion at hand.
Oh, and this is a lie. See: America, slavery. Or America, interracial marriage. Or America, anything.
It was the removal of rights. Gay couples were marrying, gay couples couldn't marry. Perfect example of removal of rights.
A few lone judges were corrected by the people's vote that says no such right exists. And they had to vote because the judges had lost their way and their reasoning. Still can't accept the vote of the people hey? Well get used to it. Your gay lifestyle is bad for kids and bad for the future of our society.
Judges are experts in the law, people are stupid. Of course it is going to be rectified sooner, rather than later. The tipping point is almost here.
And it's not a matter of whether I personally accept anything or not, it is a matter of the constitution, which absolutely finds it in violation of its own principals, as Scalia himself said.
And yet it is bad in a way you just can't actually show...
Your are the stupid one. The Constitution serves the people not the other way round. The people voted NO to same sex-marriage. The people will prevail not your agenda to narrowly interpret a document.
Uhh, no it doesn't. You truly are an idiot. Your line "That's reality dumbo" shows how utterly ignorant you are. You and reality parted ways years ago as I have shown so often.
Judges may be experts in law but the people are expert in humanity. The law had to change to express the will of the people not the will of the judges, unrepresentative swill as they are
Uhh, the judges in California are expressly representative.
And as I said, the people are stupid, hence why the constitution goes out of its way to make sure there is a judicial branch to prevent the abuses you are so enamored of, being the anti-American, freedom-hating fascist you are...
Listen to yourself, "...people are stupid". Well they were clever enough to vote against gay manipulation of marriage. You don't accept the Constitution. You are the radical anti-freedom, Anti-democratic, anti-American radical activist... it's so clear to see.
Oh well then everyone else must be wrong because you claim that one judge agrees with your high and mighty opinion. You must be Einstein. Well actually such overt arrogance is the reason people like you should never hold office in the political arena nor in the judiciary.
Once again thank you for proving how stupid you are. You would think after that cock-up over claiming Scalia is a liberal you'd have bothered to look up who he is. Of course now you are going out of your way to show what a damn fool you really are. Do you have any clue who Scalia is? Do you? You ignorant moron.
the only person who is arrogant here is you. You think you can dictate how other people live their lives. You don't even believe you have a responsibility to back up your own statements.
Get with the program... same-sex marriage is not allowed by the Californian Constitution, you know, that document you ridicule in favor of your own biased opinion. They voted NO, get used to it. You can screw all you like but you cant' marry. Children will be safe again.
No, it is not recognized by the California Constitution. There's a difference that if you were not an idiot you would understand.
Of course the California Constitution is not THE Constitution. THE Constitution is the US Constitution and it is pretty clear on this subject, and not in your favor.
When have I ever ridiculed the California Constitution? When?
And we're back to you idiocy about the children. You really are a stupid cow.
Well luckily we had the people's vote and the law was clarified. It is illegal for gays to marry and quite frankly, the majority can be glad about that.
Once again... not illegal, you moron. You keep proving over and over and over how stupid and ignorant you are.
Of course the "people's vote" is entirely unconstitutional. In fact, your side couldn't even put together anything resembling a good case in federal court.
In your opinion...but you are not a judge nor a legal expert, nor a broad minded person educated in religions and faiths. You're actually a narrow minded top or bottom. Full stop.
Actually it isn't my opinion. As I kept telling you it is Scalia's opinion. Who is not just a judge or a legal expert, but THE judge and THE legal expert. You moron.
And, like I said, I am better educated than you are in matters of religion and faith. As I've proved several times now.
And there's nothing narrow minded about me, which is something I could never say about you and your pure ignorant idiocy.
He's A Supreme Court Justice, not a Judge at all dumb-shit! Amateur hour again. Once again demonstrating you've no business talking about law. None. Typical know nothing, know it all. Childless, non-degreed, plagiarist.
This is why no one takes you seriously. See, had you bothered to read the entire exchange you would have noted that I was, in fact, using Edzikozi's language to make my point. By the way, Edzikozi was the one who referred to Scalia as a judge, and one kowtowing to a liberal agenda.
So, thank you for proving once again what an idiotic hypocrite you are.
Don't blame your ignorance on anyone else. You fucked up. No quotations bitch. LMFAO!! Take the fucking shame. Fucking got caught with your pseudo-wanna be a lawyer talk for the 500th time. Goal post moving done here.
Are you really this dumb? Really this fucking dumb?Wait this is tonestar, of course you are this dumb. Of course there were no quotations, you fucking moron, it wasn't a QUOTE. you are so obsessed with me you would seek any means to attempt to undermine me, but had you any level of sanity, you would acknowledge that "a judge nor a legal expert" was said by Edzikozi, then I said, "Who is not just a judge or a legal expert, but THE judge and THE legal expert." It's called a response, idiot.
NOBODY who shows any respect or decorum for the title and position refers to a Supreme Court Justice as a Judge. Only an idiot. You for example. Kook.
Then why are you posting this to me and not Edzikozi who did it nine times? Could it be because... Edzikozi is on your side? Ahh, the stench of your hypocrisy. Thank you for proving you are an idiot.
The "peoples vote" is constitutional as a matter of law and fact as I write this Ms. I don't know shit about law. You can't get it right to save your life. Absolute legal dimwit. The more you pretend what you're talking about the stupider you look. Give it up now.
Except how it, you know, isn't. Absolutely against the law. But please, I'll allow you to hide behind your supposed principles that you just violated right now. Meaning you are about to give it up any second...
Not recognized, not allowed. What the fuck is the practical difference idiot? There isn't any. There is no operable distinction to be made. For all purposes it means the same fucking thing. You're the idiot that doesn't understand. Argumentative twat.
Attacking religious beliefs shows how narrow minded you really are. The Constitution bars a practice called same-sex marriage. SO accept the Constitution and spare us your opinion of the Constitution.
BWAH-HA-HA! "Attacking religious beliefs!" That's hilarious! Sorry, but young earth creationism is not a religious belief. It is simply wrong. It is a sign of stupidity. Much like the geocentric universe or flat earth are simply wrong, no matter who attaches religious beliefs to them. The fact that you can't tell the difference between something true and something false, regardless of religious sentiment, shows how big of a fool you are.
As always you come up with... unique... interpretations of things. And by "unique" I mean stupid.
Religion is the search for the truth. Someone who believes in something as obviously false as young earth creationism is clearly uninterested in the truth, they're suffering from a delusion. People who believe in young earth creationism are anti-religion because they are anti-truth.
The danger is know-it-alls like you have an opinion that labels people according to your belief system. More so in your case, because you are irreligious, according to your ignorance and arrogance.
Wow, the pits your hypocrisy sinks to. Your entire reason for being here is to label gay parents as child abusers, and married gay couples as not married according a nonsensical and false belief system. you are a text book hypocrite.
Really? I'm "irreligious?" That's hilarious. And what's really funny is that you've yet to show me being ignorant of anything... unlike how I constantly show how stupid and ignorant you are.
thanatos: You God forsaken fucking idiot. The 14th Amendment says nothing, I repeat, nothing whatsoever "guaranteeing majorities can never revoke minority rights by a vote of 50% + 1." What a crock of bullshit. You really are psychotic. You don't a fucking thing about Due Process or Equal Protection. Fucking wannabe. You try to lecture those you perceive won't call you on your brazen bullshit. You absolutely pervert any reading of law you haphazardly attempt. Childless nondegreed plagiarist.
Ahh, after months, and months of psychotic behavior on your part, you are going to, once more, scream that the person who constantly and consistently points it out is, in fact, psychotic. You really need therapy.
Anywho, yes it does, that's the point of it.
And I lecture you all the time, then again, your version of "call[ing] [me] on [my] brazen bullshit" involves running away or not providing evidence when challenged or stating you won't talk about something (but only when you are losing).
I can always tell when your comeback is bereft of any redeeming semblance of a counterargument, you've waived your white trash flag. I know it's tough when someone so willing to make shit up as you doesn't tender some cock-eyed defense it's getting to the bottom of the barrel. I always provide enough evidence on the spot. As to your positively daffy understanding of The 14th Amendment, like your calling Justice Scalia "a Judge" cannot be explained by blaming someone else's shortcomings.
Hey, remember when you claimed there was some list of qualities for a successful retort and I asked you to post them... and you didn't? Hilarious. Much like this. Hey, remember how I'm still waiting on that irrefutable proof of your son's existence? Hey, remember how I keep quoting you back to yourself as evidence, while you can't even admit you said "just once?"
Anywho, as always I'm still right and you're still a waste of protein.
Waste of protein. Since when were we talking about your conception? As I recall I asked you what irrefutable proof of my son looks like and you never responded. Not that I would subject him to a raging, hysterical, militant, narcissistic, childless, non-degreed plagiarist like you. I see the pattern quite clear. You argue the points you think you have a response for and you blame the ones you can't on some bygone issue from some other time; me not posting "proof" of my son. Nice comeback loser
Wow, you suck at insulting. That's almost as bad as your "shampoo" one. And why should I? You spent days bragging about your alleged irrefutable proof. Asking me what it "looks like" is merely you trying to weasel out of providing it.
Let's talk about patterns you see! Specifically how the evil gay criminal cabal has infiltrated youtube!
What's even funnier is that once more you are merely taking behavior I've called you out on dozens of times and trying to attribute it to me.
Would you prefer I said, sometimes swallowing has its advantages? I purposely held that back, but since you felt under-served, there you go. I even tamed that form what you know I could say. As always, you avoid the sum and substance of the msg dragging your bullshit into the ditch when the road is too tough. Anyway, I racking all my comments on your legal fuck-ups as pure losses, unmitigated by your bullshit excuses. That concludes your weekend series of losses.
Wow, that would actually be an even more pathetic version of the insult. But then again being pathetic is pretty much your sole talent.
Anywho, you have no sum nor any substance to any post. See in order to have sum or substance you have to have details, details which are accurate. Which is something you fail at basically every day.
And I'm sure you "racking" the comments as losses, too bad your behavior shows someone who suffers from histrionic personality disorder who writhing in agony.
In far less words and far more substance, you referred to Justice Scalia several times as a Judge. Those are facts, that's my argument, and you're Pwned. Sorry for the lack of numbered or bulleted points. It merely distracts.
Caught you lying again. Sorry, but I only referred to Scalia as a judge once, where I specifically used the language of the post I was responding to.
So, once more your facts are wrong, your argument is false and poorly researched, and the only one walking away Pwned is, as usually, you. You should really apologize for for your sloppy, shoddy statements.
With ease, I shame you. With heretofore unknown ease I thoroughly own you no matter what you try. Now I'm bored again. Childless, non-degreed plagiarist. Legal Buffoon. You and radfaggotready should team up on a book: "How to Bluster and Blather Your Way Through Argument With only a GED"
Really? Where? Because every time we talk you run away crying and I walk away laughing.
HA! Back to claiming "boredom?" Funny how you never display the behavior of anyone who is bored. You clearly are fixated on me. Mainly because you just. can't. win. against me.
And you should write a book "How To Cry In Your Pillow Like a Little Girl Over Youtube Comments."
Over here witless! Yoo ho, over here! Let's stay on point Cinderella. The lights are on but nobody's home. Your comeback is weak, it isn't funny, crafty, clever, true or ironic, it's fucking lame. I told you, you're not funny. So why try to win me over on that. Like a little puppy dog, "look see I am funny, see I am, I am, I am!" Stop. Just stop.
Wait, wait, wait... I think you are suffering from your many psychological disorders right now. I'm not trying to "win [you] over." I have no desire to "win [you] over." You are an idiot whose hysterical, crazed rhetoric is the perfect example to show people the true face of the anti-gay.
But you just threw up a massive flag announcing your desires. You are secretly hoping that I'm trying to win you over, like you tried to win me over. That I consider you something other than very stupid slime
Also this is yet another example of how you try to reappropriate insults I made towards you back at me. I called you unfunny (let's not forget your attempt at humor consisted of that "shampoo" line) close to the first time we posted. That obviously stung didn't it? It has you fuming, leading to a series of incredibly unfunny attempts at humor.
And since you know that you just aren't funny (again, "shampoo"), you hope my own insult will wound me as it has you. Too bad I'm not insecure.
@thanatos101b LOL I noticed that too. Whatever someone throws at him he attempts to use on one of us the next day. I am sure that's why he claims he is a lawyer. Somebody read his convoluted lines when he is spitting up the dictionary and told him he "sounds like a lawyer". Same with the music no doubt. He talked a big game and someone asked him whether he is a musician and *poof* he was. ( pun intended) etc etc and there you have the "biography" of Tonestar.
But where you really excel at being pathetic are the following three places:
1. I called you raging, hysterical and narcissistic dozens of times in the past, you are just hoping that they will sting me as hard as they stung you.
2. You talk about finding a pattern in response to a post where I prove a pattern in your own behavior.
3. You don't argue points. You make statements, I ask for proof, you declare you won in an effort avoid the humiliation you feel every time we post.
In California, homosexuals enjoy the "same rights and responsibilities" as heterosexual married couples in the form of civil unions. I believe the state has the right to specify who can or cannot be given a state license, in this case a marriage license, and if the voters agree to license's particular specifications, that's that. How is separating homosexuals "marriages" into civil unions any more or less discrimintory than separating naturalized citizens from natural born citizens?
poidog776 6 months ago
@poidog776 No same sex couples do NOT get the same rights as married straight couples. Where are you getting your facts from?
And what if gays do get a civil union, they can call it 'marriage or we were "married" afterwards and it wont make one fucking bit of difference to anyone?! Here in Canada gay marriage is allowed? How is it wrong?
fitasafiddle123 5 months ago
Homosexuals ARE equal.
Equal to garbage.
jeffmonc2 8 months ago
@jeffmonc2 how do you know that? do you know every gay and lesbian individual in the world? also, how do you quantify the term, "garbage?"
natly1012 2 months ago
People act like marriage is the great invitation to monogamy. I should know it's not because I had sex with two married men. There are swingers all over the place in STRAIGHT marriages and some are childless, the arguments that NOM uses can't ever be accepted in court--I'd love to see Maggie justify her reasons in court, she's never done it because she knows she can't do it
vidhead85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Warm welcome you Latin women ** rockmycity.info **
genisenoka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kind notice for you Latin women ** rockmycity.info **
geenadeena 1 year ago
Google "Help Brian Brown of NOM" and help end gay marriage in America!
Bestmanme08 1 year ago
@Bestmanme08 Fuck Brian Brown and fuck homophobes in America. How is New York btw dumb ass
fitasafiddle123 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
URGENT!! BREAKING NEWS!!
ALL states will no longer attach the word "marriage" to any civil union contract.. if a male and female want a "marriage" certificate they must get that from a church..
THE MATTER HAS NOW ENDED..
az101010 1 year ago
Why not polygyny or polyandry?
-
ANSWER: Religious faggots want to impose the religious meme of monogamy on everyone else...
-
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 1878
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
I have always wondered, if the scotus had not struck down the interracial marriage bans at the time, how long it would have been before the states would have done it themselves
thames5 1 year ago
@thames5 said "If the scotus had not struck down the interracial marriage bans at the time, how long it would have been before the states would have done it themselves?"
This excellent question flirts with the problem of defining equal protection under the law. 100 years ago, the question of interracial marriage was settled. African-Americans and Causasians could not marry (but Native Americans and Caucasians COULD marry - Interesting!!!). 30 years ago, it was also settled - but opposite!
5891jonathan 1 year ago
@5891jonathan
Forgive my typos
5891jonathan 1 year ago
@thames5 Too Long
vidhead85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you don't approve of same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
And ...
If you want to protect traditional marriage, don't ban same-sex marriage; ban divorce.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
You do not get a say in who I love. You do not get a say in what school I attend. You do not get a say in where I sit on the bus. You do not get a say what lunch counter I eat at. You do not get a say in what water fountian I drink from. AND YOU DO NOT GET A SAY IN WHO I MARRY.
neenerpuss 1 year ago 5
@neenerpuss
Monogamy is a religious fetish. Marriage is a religious fetish.
Monogamous marriage violates the church and state separation.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you ever wonder why the so called expert on "marriage" the one and only Maggie Gallagher is never seen with her husband? If marriage is so great...why is he absent? The reason is Maggie Gallagher is married to a black man. She is in an interracial marriage. She is ASHAMED of her interracial marriage and is afraid that the conservative bigots that support her ideology will STOP DONATING to her scam organization NOM. Need Oppressive Money! 40% goes directly into her pocket.
neenerpuss 1 year ago
I admire the team effort,ladies,but nonetheless,there is no denying you all have collectively switched from ARDENT support of ssm to a creepy flirtation with tonestar disguised as assessing his mental condition.You're all like groupies crowding around a rockstar trying to see who will get to touch him first.Raps,as a married woman,you ought to know better,but than,you've never shown much knack for marital knowledge,have you?
MrBACKWOODSPROPHET 1 year ago
@MrBACKWOODSPROPHET I think you meant to say there is no NEED to deny what is so blatantly a figment of your imagination. Perhaps fueled by your own love? Are you possibly projecting dear delusional?
reddragonready 1 year ago 7
Judging by your rapid attempt to defect from the unavoidable truth regarding you own flirtations by alleging I am this type..I'd say no.
MrBACKWOODSPROPHET 1 year ago
@MrBACKWOODSPROPHET Dear, you can't judge your projecting by my behavior.
But please, show a bit of backbone now. What's with the defeatist attitude? OF COURSE you are his type! Why, you are both insanely delusional even sharing the same delusions, you both love the same books, have the same views, posted the same fantasies and have been kissing up to each other! What's more, you have shown such simpering "defense" of him for hours now! How could you not be his type? Be bold hon!
reddragonready 1 year ago 5
Why do you seem to state these bizarre desires you harbor like I have them?
MrBACKWOODSPROPHET 1 year ago
@MrBACKWOODSPROPHET Dude, that line so fails. Way too heavy handed. You really don't get the principle do you? You try it here and I try to explain why it doesn't work. You try it on the other thread and Rap tries to explain to you why it doesn't work! Give it up already and try to develop your own style! This kind of "banter" isn't it!
reddragonready 1 year ago 3
LOL - should I add what is blatantly missing from your post?
"Hands off, ladies, HE'S MINE!!"
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Why today on the View, you and Tone were mutually masturbating each other.
It was everso creepy.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Rap: Once cannot masturbate another. Idiot. I'll resist dragging your wonderful, "we talk to each other and share at bedtime" private marriage which you keep to yourself into this. LMFAO!!!!! ha ha ha!!!! You, the queen of the fruit-flies talking about creepy. The unmitigated gall. "You sicken me." Alec Baldwin (30 Rock).
tonestar100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rap: I think the mere thought of a penis, any penis is creepy to you. Don't talk about men masturbating and you'll be fine. Ha ha ha ha!
tonestar100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 3 months ago
As I recall,reddragon,you attempted to slap a "POI" label on the one calling himself "11 wombats."Not that I can blame you,with his hateful banter,but my point here is you slap it any dissenting view you find unsuitable,so don't try to limit this to us "religious" types....
MrBACKWOODSPROPHET 1 year ago
Comment removed
tonestar100 1 year ago
The Constitution of California strictly forbids same-sex marriage. I repeat, same-sex marriage is ILLEGAL in California.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Same sex marriage is illegal and unconstitutional.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Except how it is constitutionally mandated. As shown by... well the entire history of precedent.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Uhh, how about "no." You do realize the entire constitution is set up expressly to prevent majority tyranny? The electoral college, the election of senators, the entire bill of right, the amendment process to the constitution...
The framers were well aware of how the last few examples of democracy fared and went out of their way to prevent it. Hence why there's an entire Federalist Paper assuring people such abuses would not happen.
Idiot. Really stupid idiot.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Judge thanatos just invalidated the vote of the people. What a super hero in our midst. The people said NO. I say NO. The law says NO to same sex marriage. What part of NO don't you understand.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
The part where it is constitutional. You know the part you are so unwilling to provide evidence for.
That's sort of your deal, isn't it? You make these statements in the hopes no one will bother to ask you to provide evidence.
Just showing what an idiot you are over and over.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Marriage is and always was defined and culturally accepted as being between a man and a woman. It is not something that can be read a different way, not even by activist judges
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Marriage has been redefined several times.
Get over it.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
You wish !
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No I don't. It's a fact.
Sticking your head in the sand and denying that marriage has been redefined won't change the fact that it has.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
The rulings of a few extremely liberal activist courts and their judges in the USA doesn't change what marriage is globally. Many countries will not allow this sickness to spread to their jurisdictions.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Yes yes, human rights rulings are always by "activist judges".
Many countries have already legalized gay marriage. More will follow.
Quit your sulking.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
The problem for your activist judges is two fold and reveals their agenda;
1. The authors of the Constitution never meant it to be abused to change the marriage institution.
2. Your judges will read-down well recognized human rights like the right of the child to know both its mother and father and instead try to create new rights that we know don't exist, like same-sex marriage.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
1. The authors intention for the Constitution was that it would adapt and change for each generation. That's why the only specific policies in the entire constitution were about slavery (look how disastrous that turned out to be) while the rest is a series of procedures and a list of rights. But then again how, exactly, is a document written by committee supposed to have some sort of original intent? The closest you can come are the federalist papers which are most assuredly not on your side.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
By your theory ... "Hi I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you." NO, the people do not want their inalienable rights redefined and they don't want marriage redefined for absolutely everyone to satisfy a noisy minority.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
You're speaking for yourself. I want equality for all, and if that means same sex marriage, then so be it.
But it's interesting that we saw this same argument over interracial marriage.
You'd think the bigots would come up with a new shtick. It's just the same old, same old.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
No, people want their inalienable rights expanded. That's the arch of human history.
You, in fact, were openly just now making up rights out of thin air.
What the "people" want is irrelevant on the subject of rights. That's what makes rights rights. They apply equally to all citizens.
And the concept of it "redefining marriage" is just ridiculous. Even being very conservative, marriage's current definition only dates to the California Family Law Act, it's a little over thirty years old.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Actually the definition of marriage goes back hundreds of years and thousands of years in many cultures. And you want to change a cultural norm by hiding behind a specious argument about equality and rights, when history and reason already give you the answer. But keep trying to intellectualize your campaign and someone might be gullible enough to swallow it.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No it doesn't. It actually is far more recent than the California Family Law Act, but that's the point where marriage was unalterably redefined into something unrecognizable from what it was before. If you bothered to read up on this sort of stuff you would know how bad your argument is. But I do love the anti-intellectual swipe. Your side is losing because of that: you ware you stupidity as a badge of honor.
I didn't make up a right that doesn't exist. You did. So, yeah, you are projecting.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Many indigenous cultures had places within their communities for homosexuals.
But since you are bringing up marriage from thousands of years ago, you do realize that it was nothing more than a way to increase wealth, right? The woman was handed to a man for a dowry, and the woman then became the property of that man. She had no rights.
Is this the nobility of ancient marriage of which you argue? Or are you merely part of the xtian taliban that want to take us back to the middle ages?
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Thank you for displaying your pro radical feminist hatred of men in traditional marriage. I think the answer to that would be ... go iron my shirt!
Edzikozi 1 year ago
I don't have a feminist hatred of men. I'm straight and married, you dumbass. I love my husband dearly.
However, in no way, shape or form, will ssm lessen my marriage.
It seems all you have to promote is fear and ignorance.
Yes, go and iron your shirt. Leave these debates for people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.
PS - judging from your failure to post any studies that backed up the claims you made here, it's safe to say that you have nothing.
Thanks for playing.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Well if you are married and love your husband so then why are you arguing with someone on the internet. Shouldn't you be spending time with him and having your conversations with him not me. Clearly you have a communication problem and that marriage wont last if you continue to live your life and passions vicariously through Youtube. Go hug your husband.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Wow! Look at you fail. This is essentially an admission you can't back up your own points with anything.
Instead you chose to weave an elaborate fantasy life about Raps based on... well nothing. Actually less than nothing as you have to actively work to figure a way to Raps not loving her husband. It's an attempt to redirect the conversation from the objective which you know you can't win (you claimed Scallia of all people kowtowed to a liberal agenda), to the subjective where things get messy.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
The Youtube debates on marriage are typified by calls for references to studies and the like. Quite frankly, this is an exercise for you to go to the library to make those discoveries for yourself but you wont because you have an ideology to promote and project. You know what marriage is and always has been. Procreation and the plight of children is reason enough not to countenance same-sex marriage.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Well yes, they are. Because through studies we know the cause and effect of things. Without them, we have only bigotry and fear of the unknown.
Quite frankly, I don't think you have any studies to reference. You just pulled something out of your ass and called it a fact. Otherwise you'd back up your "reputable" studies - something you can't seem to do.
SSM will not endanger the plight of children, and procreation is not a condition of marriage.
These are the facts.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
WOW! Nice attempt at goading. You are completely dodging because you know you can't actually back up your own statements.
I've already told you I could probably fill ten posts with studies, I have access to over a hundred research databases containing material from over a thousand peer-reviewed journals. You have nothing, and are trying to weasel out of it.
Oh, and Scalia already killed your procreation argument, and obviously there is no plight of children, since you can't produce one.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
LOL is this your armchair analysis of my marriage? Is this all you've got left in your repertoire?
Are you admitting by the same logic that you are single and live alone with no one to talk to?
Clearly you are a big sulky girl who has no other argument other than to take a swing.
We're still waiting for these studies you claim to have as irrefutable proof that children are harmed by same sex marriage.
C'mon you big sook. Put up or shut up. It's that simple.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Wow, this is a nice way to avoid reality.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
LOL - still on the ol' "activist judge" leg, are you? Equality is not an agenda. It's a right for all.
The authors of the constitution likely never gave gay marriage a second thought.
A child can be brought up beautifully by ssm couples. This has been proven. Merely having a man and a woman in the fold does not guarantee a well balanced child.
And there you are being all wrong again. SSM is a right in several countries and so far, 5 states.
Do try to keep up.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
You said, "Merely having a man and a woman in the fold does not guarantee a well balanced child.". Actually the child has every chance of growing up with a distorted identity and lack of balance. The natural family is the safest and best environment to raise children and you can't escape that fact.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Really? Do you have any studies that back up your opinion?
Because there have been numerous studies done that refutes your claim that children of same sex couples grow up with a distorted identity.
So, put up or shut up.
I can back up by claims with actual studies. Can you?
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
The onus is on you to produce any reputable studies and not just advocacy research. Nearly all the reputable research is about the natural family. You know, a man and women meet, get married, generate children and raise them safely as their own flesh and blood. Try doing that with two penises!
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No it's not. The onus is on your to prove your claims.
Nearly all the "reputable" research is about the natural family? Go on, tell us which "reputable" research you are referring to. Be specific.
And LOL at your "two penises" remark. Do you live in the outback where you are sheltered from the realities of the world? Dearie, many gay men are fathers. There are also many women willing to carry a baby for another. There is also adoption.
My goodness, you are a speshul snowflake, aren't you?
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Uhh, you seem to be confused about the concept of "burden of proof." See, you made the statement in the first place, so you have to back it up in the second place, so we can refute it in the third place. You makes the statements you backs them up.
The "reputable research" generally means research where the (this is hilarious by the way as nature wants us to live in large social polyamerous groups) "natural" family is concerned does not study gay families. Can't extrapolate that to gay families.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
You should probably learn to revise. Your actual statement here is that having a man and a woman as the parents of a child gives them every chance of growing up with a distorted identity and a lack of balance. Which is the only thing in this statement that is true.
What is a fact is that none of your concerns about gay parents are actually born out in any scientific studies. If I wanted to I could start a very lengthy list of studies proving how unsound these claims are for the next ten posts.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
2. There is no right for a child to know it's biological parents. It simply doesn't exist. There is however a clear right to marriage. And you should be more worried about your judges. Antonin Scalia has already stated that the case against marriage equality is devoid of both principal and logic.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Must be the same kind of judge that ruled in Row v Wade to remove legal protection from the unborn human baby. Since then 60M+ human beings have been terminated. And you advocate a kind of superior view of the wisdom of these judges! Go figure! Actually everyone knows they are pandering to a liberal agenda.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
My, you're jumping all over the place tonight, aren't you?
I'm still waiting for your studies that back up your claims that children of same sex couples grow up with a distorted identity.
Tick tock.....
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Wow, look at you! Look at you wonder off the reservation completely. Using abortion as a red herring! Disgusting!
But more importantly you didn't even bother to check for a moment who Scallia is. Which makes this entire post hilariously moronic. Thanks for the perfect example of pure ignorance.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Nonsense...children have a natural inalienable right to know both their mom and their dad and this right they are born with predates the Constitution and other legal documents.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Bullshit. The Catholic Church has a vast history of removing children from an unwed mother and placing them in church run orphanages where they never knew their mothers or fathers.
Clearly their rights weren't recognized.
You're just attempting to invent facts that don't exist. Pulling them out of your ass doesn't make them facts.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Regardless of how badly the church and other groups may have behaved the following is still true ... children have a natural inalienable right to know both their mom and their dad and this right they are born with predates the Constitution and other legal documents.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No they don't. And they never have.
You really ought to stuck to things you know. The Constitution is not one of those things.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
No, it is not. Which is why you can't actually find a since document articulating such a right, because such a right does not exist.
Anyone with more than the smallest understanding of adoption law will tell you how you are merely making a right up that does not exist.
Something you claim to be against... unless you happen to be for it. Such hypocrisy.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
This is hilarious. You keep making stuff up, and now that you have been called on it you are trying to get away with claiming that just because no one has ever recognized such a right exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist. Remember how you claimed judges were making rights up out of thin air? You've just done that right now. Your hypocrisy is monumental.
Sorry, but no where is there an inalienable right to know a persons biological parents. NO WHERE. It does not exist.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
When two men or two women marry and engineer obtaining a child from another couple or donor, the child's right to know his/her natural (biological) parents has already been violated. This is a kind if insipid abuse of the child. When judges try to codify a right to abuse a child they reveal themselves even more so.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
You mean that right that does not exist in any way, shape or form? Of course the alternative is the child does not exist in the first place. I sincerely hope you are pro-choice (but I know you are not), since your statements here show you want to actively go out and abort thousands of children.
Which is more abusive to a child: giving them a loving family or denying them existence?
Sorry, but the only child abuser around here is you.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
When same sex partners who cannot procreate naturally with each other, then procure a child to live the homosexual lifestyle, without the balance of a mom and dad, they are treating the child as property and making a claim to someone elses child for their own selfish reasons.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Your continued (mis)use of "natural" and "homosexual lifestyle" shows a complete lack of knowledge of both homosexuality and nature. Much like your classification of Scalia as a liberal shows your lack of knowledge about basic civics. (Not to mention showing you couldn't care less about human dignity).
And your solution to this is to kill the child. How merciful of you.
Of course logically you are at a dead end, it isn't "someone else's child" (unless we are talking kidnapping, and we aren't).
thanatos101b 1 year ago
No yours is a straw man argument, trying to project my argument back to me and misrepresenting what I said. OK, so you're in debating school and practice makes perfect...you need a lot of practice. How very gay...
Edzikozi 1 year ago
How. Let's see you back up this logic train. Find me a strawman, then find me projecting, and finally find me misrepresenting you. Oh, and make sure that all those quotes are the actual definition of all those fallacies and not merely me pointing out the implications of your own ideology that you failed to consider, like how you are all in favor of abortion as long as it is restricted to the children of gays.
Face it, you've got no evidence to support a bunch of false claims.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Speaking of straw man arguments, you've tried arguing children have the right to know their parents - they don't.You've tried selling us on the idea that same sex couples cannot raise a child as well as heterosexual couples can - you're wrong.And you've tried calling Scalia an activist judge. Epic fail.
Apparently you are the one who needs to attend "debating school". The first thing you'd learn is attempting to project your lack of an argument on your opponent is the lamest trick in the book.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Since when is it a condition of marriage to procreate? I can't think of one instance where a couple must sign an agreement that they will have children before they are issued a marriage license.
By that argument, you just rendered post menopausal women unable to marry. Wow, talk about infringing on another persons rights!
Wow, you just slapped the face of single mothers and single fathers everywhere with that statement. Maybe they should have just aborted their child, hmmm?
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Yeah some couples can't procreate but their marriage still forms the mother-father structure, i.e. they provide the model and the potential of a mother and a father and it is right to extend marriage to them for this reason ... and that is why we allow them to marry you dumb head.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
A sterile couple can not form either model or potential for a mother or a father. But I'll let Scalia take the lead on this one, "what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,' ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Taking your approach to liberty, our society would degenerate and become a total free for all. That is why social norms, customs and culture exist, to regulate human society. Gay lifestyle advocates like you don't like the rules of society around marriage and nurturing children and so will use any excuse to try to change the laws at great cost to children and traditional marriage.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Yes, this was the same argument the bigots tried to sell us in regards to interracial marriage.
Bigots like you will try any unsubstantiated fear tactic in order to paint a future of doom and gloom if we dare give rights to minorities.
Guess what? That tactic hasn't worked yet, and it's not likely to start now.
How about you start backing up some of your claims with actual substantiated facts, hmmm?
You can do that, can't you? You're not just talking out of your ass, are you?
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
You can't escape biology and the reality of the child-parent bond. By your logic if I spat in your eye you would tell me it was raining. Face it, a gay fuck doesn't create children and marriage is about kids.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
And you can't seem to escape logic.The parent child bond exists between the child and the parent who raises it.That is a fact.
Marriage isn't about kids.Like I said before, if marriage was about children, people would be forced to sign a contract agreeing to have children before being issued a marriage license. Marriage is a legal contract.
A gay fuck may not create children, but that's what adoption is for.
You're awfully unimaginative. I guess it's due to the fact you don't get out much.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
Marriage is a NATURAL INSTITUTION. The potential for creating children in nature exists for the married man and woman. Your narrow definition of marriage as being just a license or a piece of paper shows how ignorant you are fuck head.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Marriage is absolutely 100% UNnatural. There is nothing natural about it. All apes (including humans) are designed to live in polyamerous groups, not in monogamous pairs. That's why throughout most of human history in most of human cultures polygamy has been the norm.
Yes, and the potential in nature for creating children in nature exists for the unmarried man and woman.
Sorry, but your attempt to define a legal construct as a natural construct shows how utterly brain-dead ignorant you are.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Well you can be a dumb ape but the rest of us humans choose to be intelligent about the serious aspects of life like marriage and raising kids. Go find a baboon and marry it, that's your right isn't it?
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Wow, this is pure idiocy right to its core. Still hoping that in attacking me you will be left off the hook for all those unsupported statements.
And no, there's nothing intelligent about your statements on marriage or raising kids. As your last sentence proves quite easily.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Marriage is not a natural institution. Randomly capitalizing the words does not make that statement true.
The potential for creating children in nature has nothing to do with marriage. If this was the case, people would be unable to fuck out of wedlock.
Sorry, marriage has always been and will always be a man made institution.
And yes, it's a contract. Jesus fuck you are stupid.
I'm off to bed. I'll reply to your batshittery tomorrow.
RapscallionRebellion 1 year ago
That's it? That's your simplistic distillation of what marriage is .... you've got a lot to learn and live dearie.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
HA! You can't even offer up the most tepid refutation of what I said. I guess this is a good an admission as any that I am absolutely right about what marriage is.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
What marriage is...
Marriage is a lifelong partnership of the whole of life, of mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between a man and a woman, and ordered towards the good of the spouse and the procreation and education of offspring.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Oh, this is fun! Let's take it apart one by one...
"Marriage is" so far so good...
"lifelong... whole of life" redundant and false. Thanks to the California Family Law Act we have something called divorce. Meaning your definition is already false.
"Mutual and exclusive fidelity" Another false statement. People cheat on their spouses all the time, it doesn't end the marriage nor is it illegal. Also many couples engage in swinging. So still false...
thanatos101b 1 year ago
"Mutual consent" well that's actually true. Congratulations for accidentally stumbling onto something true.
"between a man and a woman" and we are right back to being false. Sorry, but plenty of places just struck that one from the list.
"good of the spouse" that... not so much. While there are laws about spousal abuse, generally the government takes a decidedly disinterested look towards the couple's happiness.
"procreation" Pure false. there is no requirement of procreation.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
"education of offspring" considering the first part of that clause was false, the second will obviously be false as well.
So out of six clauses, you managed to get one correct claim.
Boy, you suck at this. It's too easy.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Only a gay would have such a sterile simplistic view of what marriage is.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No, only someone living in the reality based community would have such a... reality based view of what marriage is.
Note how I quickly and easily falsified five out of your six claims about what married is. Falsified them in such a way, you aren't even attempting to mount an objective defense of them, but rather going back to subjective emotions.
Neither I, nor the government, nor reality, nor the institution of marriage cares about how you feel. So offer up some hard evidence.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
You mean, living in the gay based community. No wonder you have a jaded view of traditional marriage. Anyway, tell it to the population of California who voted your judge-activated deformed marriage out of law.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Still can't come up with a worthwhile refutation of my falsifications of your idiocy?
The very fact that you are relying so heavily on argumentum ad populum at the moment shows that you have no where else to go.
And how sad is your attempt to gloat? It shows the pettiness and vindictiveness of spirit that categorizes anti-gays.
You should be ashamed.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
'The law is the law' is your crutch for arguing for same-sick marriage. Now when the people vote to reaffirm traditional marriage and outlaw gay marriage, you don't respect the people's vote. What a hypocrite you are.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
That's because 'the law is the law.' You do realize we are talking about civil marriage, do you not? Civil, as in the civil government?
And part of the civil government is a Constitution that guarantees majorities can never revoke minority rights by a vote of 50%+1. It was such an important concept that an entire amendment was added to the constitution to enshrine it. The fourteenth to be exact. Where "due process" and "equal protection" live. The constitution is the ultimate law. Idiot.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
The Attorney General's re-writing of the Prop 8 wording was totally shambolic. There he re-framed the words in support of marriage as being between a man and woman to something quite different, the alleged removal of rights. Well, the AG and the Court don't give you these rights. You were either born with them or not. No new creation of rights. The State officials found "new rights" but the people corrected their activism. They voted NO; gay marriage is illegal and unconstitutional.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Wow, this has nothing to do with anything. Anything at all. It's a wonderful example of babbling uncontrollably and attempting to shift the conversation out of the dangerous territory, but has no connection to the discussion at hand.
Oh, and this is a lie. See: America, slavery. Or America, interracial marriage. Or America, anything.
It was the removal of rights. Gay couples were marrying, gay couples couldn't marry. Perfect example of removal of rights.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
A few lone judges were corrected by the people's vote that says no such right exists. And they had to vote because the judges had lost their way and their reasoning. Still can't accept the vote of the people hey? Well get used to it. Your gay lifestyle is bad for kids and bad for the future of our society.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Judges are experts in the law, people are stupid. Of course it is going to be rectified sooner, rather than later. The tipping point is almost here.
And it's not a matter of whether I personally accept anything or not, it is a matter of the constitution, which absolutely finds it in violation of its own principals, as Scalia himself said.
And yet it is bad in a way you just can't actually show...
Your stupidity is amazing.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Your are the stupid one. The Constitution serves the people not the other way round. The people voted NO to same sex-marriage. The people will prevail not your agenda to narrowly interpret a document.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Funny, I'm not the one who accused Scalia, of all people, of being a liberal.
Yes, the constitution serves the people, ALL the people. That's the point of it.
And that's funny, since you are the one going on and on about narrowly interpreting it, not me.
Seriously, you are truly dumb.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
And the Constitution say NO to same-sex marriage. That's reality dumbo.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Uhh, no it doesn't. You truly are an idiot. Your line "That's reality dumbo" shows how utterly ignorant you are. You and reality parted ways years ago as I have shown so often.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Judges may be experts in law but the people are expert in humanity. The law had to change to express the will of the people not the will of the judges, unrepresentative swill as they are
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Uhh, the judges in California are expressly representative.
And as I said, the people are stupid, hence why the constitution goes out of its way to make sure there is a judicial branch to prevent the abuses you are so enamored of, being the anti-American, freedom-hating fascist you are...
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Listen to yourself, "...people are stupid". Well they were clever enough to vote against gay manipulation of marriage. You don't accept the Constitution. You are the radical anti-freedom, Anti-democratic, anti-American radical activist... it's so clear to see.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
I am listening to myself. The people are stupid. It's pretty much their defining trait. That's why people actually believe young earth creationism.
And how is that "clever?" Go on, this should be great.
How, exactly, do I not accept the Constitution, everything I've said is expressly constitutional, that's why I keep referring to it.
Also how is seeking the fundamental right of marriage radical?
When have I ever been anti-freedom?
You are such a fool.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Because you think your view of the Constitution makes you right. Actually you are wrong-headed.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
That's because my view of the constitution is right. Hence why I keep referring to Scalia's statements on it, just to prove how right I am.
But please, show me where I am wrong headed.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Oh well then everyone else must be wrong because you claim that one judge agrees with your high and mighty opinion. You must be Einstein. Well actually such overt arrogance is the reason people like you should never hold office in the political arena nor in the judiciary.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Once again thank you for proving how stupid you are. You would think after that cock-up over claiming Scalia is a liberal you'd have bothered to look up who he is. Of course now you are going out of your way to show what a damn fool you really are. Do you have any clue who Scalia is? Do you? You ignorant moron.
the only person who is arrogant here is you. You think you can dictate how other people live their lives. You don't even believe you have a responsibility to back up your own statements.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Get with the program... same-sex marriage is not allowed by the Californian Constitution, you know, that document you ridicule in favor of your own biased opinion. They voted NO, get used to it. You can screw all you like but you cant' marry. Children will be safe again.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
No, it is not recognized by the California Constitution. There's a difference that if you were not an idiot you would understand.
Of course the California Constitution is not THE Constitution. THE Constitution is the US Constitution and it is pretty clear on this subject, and not in your favor.
When have I ever ridiculed the California Constitution? When?
And we're back to you idiocy about the children. You really are a stupid cow.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Well luckily we had the people's vote and the law was clarified. It is illegal for gays to marry and quite frankly, the majority can be glad about that.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Once again... not illegal, you moron. You keep proving over and over and over how stupid and ignorant you are.
Of course the "people's vote" is entirely unconstitutional. In fact, your side couldn't even put together anything resembling a good case in federal court.
You truly are a dumb piece of shit.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
In your opinion...but you are not a judge nor a legal expert, nor a broad minded person educated in religions and faiths. You're actually a narrow minded top or bottom. Full stop.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Actually it isn't my opinion. As I kept telling you it is Scalia's opinion. Who is not just a judge or a legal expert, but THE judge and THE legal expert. You moron.
And, like I said, I am better educated than you are in matters of religion and faith. As I've proved several times now.
And there's nothing narrow minded about me, which is something I could never say about you and your pure ignorant idiocy.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
He's A Supreme Court Justice, not a Judge at all dumb-shit! Amateur hour again. Once again demonstrating you've no business talking about law. None. Typical know nothing, know it all. Childless, non-degreed, plagiarist.
tonestar100 1 year ago
This is why no one takes you seriously. See, had you bothered to read the entire exchange you would have noted that I was, in fact, using Edzikozi's language to make my point. By the way, Edzikozi was the one who referred to Scalia as a judge, and one kowtowing to a liberal agenda.
So, thank you for proving once again what an idiotic hypocrite you are.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Don't blame your ignorance on anyone else. You fucked up. No quotations bitch. LMFAO!! Take the fucking shame. Fucking got caught with your pseudo-wanna be a lawyer talk for the 500th time. Goal post moving done here.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Are you really this dumb? Really this fucking dumb?Wait this is tonestar, of course you are this dumb. Of course there were no quotations, you fucking moron, it wasn't a QUOTE. you are so obsessed with me you would seek any means to attempt to undermine me, but had you any level of sanity, you would acknowledge that "a judge nor a legal expert" was said by Edzikozi, then I said, "Who is not just a judge or a legal expert, but THE judge and THE legal expert." It's called a response, idiot.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
NOBODY who shows any respect or decorum for the title and position refers to a Supreme Court Justice as a Judge. Only an idiot. You for example. Kook.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Then why are you posting this to me and not Edzikozi who did it nine times? Could it be because... Edzikozi is on your side? Ahh, the stench of your hypocrisy. Thank you for proving you are an idiot.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
The "peoples vote" is constitutional as a matter of law and fact as I write this Ms. I don't know shit about law. You can't get it right to save your life. Absolute legal dimwit. The more you pretend what you're talking about the stupider you look. Give it up now.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Except how it, you know, isn't. Absolutely against the law. But please, I'll allow you to hide behind your supposed principles that you just violated right now. Meaning you are about to give it up any second...
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Not recognized, not allowed. What the fuck is the practical difference idiot? There isn't any. There is no operable distinction to be made. For all purposes it means the same fucking thing. You're the idiot that doesn't understand. Argumentative twat.
tonestar100 1 year ago
The practical difference is being arrested for doing it. See: Uganda.
HA! You witless moron. You really do need to go out and rent a brain for the evening.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Attacking religious beliefs shows how narrow minded you really are. The Constitution bars a practice called same-sex marriage. SO accept the Constitution and spare us your opinion of the Constitution.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
BWAH-HA-HA! "Attacking religious beliefs!" That's hilarious! Sorry, but young earth creationism is not a religious belief. It is simply wrong. It is a sign of stupidity. Much like the geocentric universe or flat earth are simply wrong, no matter who attaches religious beliefs to them. The fact that you can't tell the difference between something true and something false, regardless of religious sentiment, shows how big of a fool you are.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
You know fuck all about religion.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
I know more about it than you do. As I just proved.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
You proved just how secular your thinking is. Again you demonstrated you know fuck all about religion.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
As always you come up with... unique... interpretations of things. And by "unique" I mean stupid.
Religion is the search for the truth. Someone who believes in something as obviously false as young earth creationism is clearly uninterested in the truth, they're suffering from a delusion. People who believe in young earth creationism are anti-religion because they are anti-truth.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
The danger is know-it-alls like you have an opinion that labels people according to your belief system. More so in your case, because you are irreligious, according to your ignorance and arrogance.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Wow, the pits your hypocrisy sinks to. Your entire reason for being here is to label gay parents as child abusers, and married gay couples as not married according a nonsensical and false belief system. you are a text book hypocrite.
Really? I'm "irreligious?" That's hilarious. And what's really funny is that you've yet to show me being ignorant of anything... unlike how I constantly show how stupid and ignorant you are.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Face reality. The Constitution says NO. You can't marry.
Edzikozi 1 year ago
Except how it doesn't. Something you seem to be confused upon.
Good lord, you are an idiot.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Oh, and if it "bars a practice" please, show me where. Prove you aren't a moron.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
thanatos: You God forsaken fucking idiot. The 14th Amendment says nothing, I repeat, nothing whatsoever "guaranteeing majorities can never revoke minority rights by a vote of 50% + 1." What a crock of bullshit. You really are psychotic. You don't a fucking thing about Due Process or Equal Protection. Fucking wannabe. You try to lecture those you perceive won't call you on your brazen bullshit. You absolutely pervert any reading of law you haphazardly attempt. Childless nondegreed plagiarist.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Ahh, after months, and months of psychotic behavior on your part, you are going to, once more, scream that the person who constantly and consistently points it out is, in fact, psychotic. You really need therapy.
Anywho, yes it does, that's the point of it.
And I lecture you all the time, then again, your version of "call[ing] [me] on [my] brazen bullshit" involves running away or not providing evidence when challenged or stating you won't talk about something (but only when you are losing).
thanatos101b 1 year ago
I can always tell when your comeback is bereft of any redeeming semblance of a counterargument, you've waived your white trash flag. I know it's tough when someone so willing to make shit up as you doesn't tender some cock-eyed defense it's getting to the bottom of the barrel. I always provide enough evidence on the spot. As to your positively daffy understanding of The 14th Amendment, like your calling Justice Scalia "a Judge" cannot be explained by blaming someone else's shortcomings.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Hey, remember when you claimed there was some list of qualities for a successful retort and I asked you to post them... and you didn't? Hilarious. Much like this. Hey, remember how I'm still waiting on that irrefutable proof of your son's existence? Hey, remember how I keep quoting you back to yourself as evidence, while you can't even admit you said "just once?"
Anywho, as always I'm still right and you're still a waste of protein.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Waste of protein. Since when were we talking about your conception? As I recall I asked you what irrefutable proof of my son looks like and you never responded. Not that I would subject him to a raging, hysterical, militant, narcissistic, childless, non-degreed plagiarist like you. I see the pattern quite clear. You argue the points you think you have a response for and you blame the ones you can't on some bygone issue from some other time; me not posting "proof" of my son. Nice comeback loser
tonestar100 1 year ago
Wow, you suck at insulting. That's almost as bad as your "shampoo" one. And why should I? You spent days bragging about your alleged irrefutable proof. Asking me what it "looks like" is merely you trying to weasel out of providing it.
Let's talk about patterns you see! Specifically how the evil gay criminal cabal has infiltrated youtube!
What's even funnier is that once more you are merely taking behavior I've called you out on dozens of times and trying to attribute it to me.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Would you prefer I said, sometimes swallowing has its advantages? I purposely held that back, but since you felt under-served, there you go. I even tamed that form what you know I could say. As always, you avoid the sum and substance of the msg dragging your bullshit into the ditch when the road is too tough. Anyway, I racking all my comments on your legal fuck-ups as pure losses, unmitigated by your bullshit excuses. That concludes your weekend series of losses.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Wow, that would actually be an even more pathetic version of the insult. But then again being pathetic is pretty much your sole talent.
Anywho, you have no sum nor any substance to any post. See in order to have sum or substance you have to have details, details which are accurate. Which is something you fail at basically every day.
And I'm sure you "racking" the comments as losses, too bad your behavior shows someone who suffers from histrionic personality disorder who writhing in agony.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
In far less words and far more substance, you referred to Justice Scalia several times as a Judge. Those are facts, that's my argument, and you're Pwned. Sorry for the lack of numbered or bulleted points. It merely distracts.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Caught you lying again. Sorry, but I only referred to Scalia as a judge once, where I specifically used the language of the post I was responding to.
So, once more your facts are wrong, your argument is false and poorly researched, and the only one walking away Pwned is, as usually, you. You should really apologize for for your sloppy, shoddy statements.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
With ease, I shame you. With heretofore unknown ease I thoroughly own you no matter what you try. Now I'm bored again. Childless, non-degreed plagiarist. Legal Buffoon. You and radfaggotready should team up on a book: "How to Bluster and Blather Your Way Through Argument With only a GED"
tonestar100 1 year ago
Really? Where? Because every time we talk you run away crying and I walk away laughing.
HA! Back to claiming "boredom?" Funny how you never display the behavior of anyone who is bored. You clearly are fixated on me. Mainly because you just. can't. win. against me.
And you should write a book "How To Cry In Your Pillow Like a Little Girl Over Youtube Comments."
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Over here witless! Yoo ho, over here! Let's stay on point Cinderella. The lights are on but nobody's home. Your comeback is weak, it isn't funny, crafty, clever, true or ironic, it's fucking lame. I told you, you're not funny. So why try to win me over on that. Like a little puppy dog, "look see I am funny, see I am, I am, I am!" Stop. Just stop.
tonestar100 1 year ago
Wait, wait, wait... I think you are suffering from your many psychological disorders right now. I'm not trying to "win [you] over." I have no desire to "win [you] over." You are an idiot whose hysterical, crazed rhetoric is the perfect example to show people the true face of the anti-gay.
But you just threw up a massive flag announcing your desires. You are secretly hoping that I'm trying to win you over, like you tried to win me over. That I consider you something other than very stupid slime
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Also this is yet another example of how you try to reappropriate insults I made towards you back at me. I called you unfunny (let's not forget your attempt at humor consisted of that "shampoo" line) close to the first time we posted. That obviously stung didn't it? It has you fuming, leading to a series of incredibly unfunny attempts at humor.
And since you know that you just aren't funny (again, "shampoo"), you hope my own insult will wound me as it has you. Too bad I'm not insecure.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b LOL I noticed that too. Whatever someone throws at him he attempts to use on one of us the next day. I am sure that's why he claims he is a lawyer. Somebody read his convoluted lines when he is spitting up the dictionary and told him he "sounds like a lawyer". Same with the music no doubt. He talked a big game and someone asked him whether he is a musician and *poof* he was. ( pun intended) etc etc and there you have the "biography" of Tonestar.
reddragonready 1 year ago
Note how you still can't admit I just caught you lying earlier with your whole "judge" debacle.
Take the shame.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
But where you really excel at being pathetic are the following three places:
1. I called you raging, hysterical and narcissistic dozens of times in the past, you are just hoping that they will sting me as hard as they stung you.
2. You talk about finding a pattern in response to a post where I prove a pattern in your own behavior.
3. You don't argue points. You make statements, I ask for proof, you declare you won in an effort avoid the humiliation you feel every time we post.
Take the shame
thanatos101b 1 year ago
I'll give you an "A" for an organized appearance, and an "F" for content and lack of substantive argument.
tonestar100 1 year ago