Posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:25 AM PDT by wk4bush2004
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
wow
do you not even understand the basic argument>
I will try and tell you again as others have told you, now read slowly and try to use that brain.
Homo’s have been telling other homo’s where to move for years.
They have done what they have been told and have changed certain areas, Even a poster on here has told you this.
Now read slowly
I am saying that if all conservatives moved out of the liberal states and moved into swing states then we would have a conservative base which would be a liberals, your worst nightmare.
Do you see the difference of me saying imagine if all moved and actually what homo’s have been doing for years?
it really is simple, think before you post
Is it possible for you to post to me without calling me a perverted, liberal homo once or twice? This from the same poster who complained that I was posting off-topic.
Just curious.
can you actually answer those questions I posed for you?
can you actually answer those questions I posed for you?
you keep avoiding the issue of using the same argument for homo;s can be used for any other kind of marriage.
out of curiosity can you answer
These states have the best public education in the country, lowest divorce rates, and lowest rates of uninsured (those without health insurance). Sounds good to me....
No kidding? What are my stances on other issues?
you missed this before every argument which liberals, homo’s and yourself have used can be used for any kind of marriage [list snipped]
No, I've seen variations of that list countless times. While many of those arrangements have problems, none of them are the subject of this discussion.
My question, which I've asked patiently several times, is this: How does the marriage between two consenting adult men devalue a marriage between a consenting adult heterosexual couple?
You say that I've received an answer "at least 3" times. I have already responded to one who took the bizarre tack of equating the marriage supply to the money supply. Rather than answer directly you have mostly ranted about teh butt-sechs while suggesting that conservatives should build a big southeast playhouse with a "No Homos Allowed" sign on the gate.
If I am in error please point me to a prior post of yours where you address the question directly.
Saying "they have the best government schools" is like saying they have the fastest three-leg dog.
Welcome to FreeRepublic. Hope you signed up for more than to pimp homosexual “marriage”.
you know what you seem not to be the brightest bulb going so I will do this.
read the past posts to you by me and others. There you will find your answer.
Now I have asked you a couple of times now about the same arguments being used for other kinds of marriage.
you still cannot answer so I will make it easier for you.
do you not see that by allowing the same sex to marry each other that you are now opening the gates to all sorts of marriages.
EVERY argument which has been used by you and homos can be used for other kinds of marriages
now it is a yes or no answer.
could you write yes or no to answer please.
If not then I am wasting my time with you as you seem unable to grasp what anyone is saying to you
No, I find what differences might exist to be superficial at best. By the way, seeing as how you appear to be the most well-versed poster here on the subject, what websites and other forums do you find to be the most authoritative source of instruction for where homosexuals should move and how they should vote?
seems this thread has been spouted out to the homo boards as there is a sudden influx of newbies and they have come straight on here
No, I find what differences might exist to be superficial at best
__________________________________________
of course you would
LOL
actually I should have checked my mail before replying to you it seems that a few posters know of you.
reminder
check messages before replying
Sure, the slippery slope argument. I've seen used it countless times to greater and lesser effect. Mostly I find it to be intellectually lazy. Here, you are using it to suggest that we can't let two men get married now because a woman might be able to marry her dog later. Rather than spend any pixels analyzing your choice of that specific juxtaposition, let me just say that it's an argument from consequences, and not a particularly compelling one at that.
Moreover, you still forgot to specify how the marriage of half a dozen people to each other makes a run-of-the-mill hetero marriage somehow worth less.
Mostly I find it to be intellectually lazy
LOL
of course you do as you still cannot answer it
it was simple
every argument used for homos to marry can be used for any other kind of marraige.
do you see that
yes or no
Oh noes!!1!! [gasp!] Please.... I... I'll do anything you want, just DON'T READ THOSE PMS FROM OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT ME!!!!
More to the point allow me to direct your attention to post #30 by you in this very thread.
...we helped to stop homo’s from getting married here in FL
Please all conservative who are against this get out of New England, it is not the place where you grew up...
That's more an instruction than a suggestion or a flight of imagination, and rather undermines your claims to the contrary. I await your apology.
are you for real Ian, honestly are you??????
that is a question by the way so an answer would be nice.
you have been explained several times by me and others if you do not understand then it is not my problem.
as for the slippery slope
yes or no
Now that's just silly.
Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are “similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.” “ ‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’ All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently, any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise, “similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’ committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.
Iowa Supreme Court Gay Marriage Opinion (Summary)
Feel free to explain how the above argument for gay marriage can be used as justification to marry a woman and her dog as you suggest. I'll wait.
do you not see it yes or no
their privacy,,
love each other
have a right to marry
what other B/S
not hurting me
every argument can be sued for a man to marry 5 women
mother marry her son
brother marry her daughter
so again seeing as you are having an hard time answering
yes or no
do you see it????????????
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
LOL
you actually took the time to look at what Ian is.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.