Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by Baron Samedi at 10:12 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Would you also support making it illegal to get a divorce? That would certainly protect the institution of marriage.  And, it would make sure the children had both of their parents around.  Think of the children. So, would you support banning divorce altogether?  Yes or no? -- Posted by Savior at 10:12 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Sure would! -- Posted by Rollo Tomasi at 10:12 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 i am all for gay marriage and the elimination of divorce completel -- Posted by MischaELLE at 10:14 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 check this out. http://daytonward.livejournal.com/260575.html?view=911071#t911071 -- Posted by gronk at 10:15 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 No not banning divorce. Just make sure there are clear and fair restrictions about divorce. And not sure how, but somehow marriage needs to be taken more seriously -- Posted by tell me again at 10:18 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Aw look, Baron poses a REAL question! -- Posted by greatescape at 10:18 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this.  Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously. -- Posted by lucid dreams19 at 10:22 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Honestly I could care either way in the case of gay marriage. If i had to vote (Im in Canada therefore we didn't have a vote on gay marriage) id vote in favour of gay marriage because it doesnt affect me at all and just let them live their life -- Posted by gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this. Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously. thats a bit of a generalization I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuious. on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros -- Posted by tell me again at 10:25 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously    Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this.  Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.     thats a bit of a generalization I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuious. on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros They don't have to marry everyone they fuck. -- Posted by Style Out at 10:26 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from tell me again at 10:18 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Aw look, Baron poses a REAL question! You know how those gays get about their rights -- Posted by sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. -- Posted by greatescape at 10:39 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from tell me again at 12:25 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously   Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this. Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.      thats a bit of a generalization    I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuious.    on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros They don't have to marry everyone they fuck. I was not being sarcastic at all. -- Posted by greatescape at 10:41 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 12:28 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. Please explain how the legalization was unconstitutional. -- Posted by gronk at 10:47 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from tell me again at 5:25 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously   Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this. Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.      thats a bit of a generalization    I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuious.    on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros They don't have to marry everyone they fuck. no but marriage is meant to be about  monogomy, people who are sexually promiscious, shouldnt get married if they cant commit to one. I have no tolerance for adultery, nor should anyone else -- Posted by sykexl at 10:48 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:41 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 12:28 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. Please explain how the legalization was unconstitutional. No thanks. I suggest you read the constitution. I then suggest you look into how it was legalized. Then I suggest you apply some logic. It is so much better when you figure these things out for yourself. -- Posted by greatescape at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 12:48 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:41 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 12:28 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.    Please explain how the legalization was unconstitutional. No thanks. I suggest you read the constitution. I then suggest you look into how it was legalized. Then I suggest you apply some logic. It is so much better when you figure these things out for yourself. hahaha. Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks.  I was curious as to how you were going to argue that giving equal rights to all American citizens is unconstitutional.  Or how you were going to argue that seperation of church and state is unconstitutional. Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea. -- Posted by sykexl at 11:19 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself. Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea. I do believe I made it perfectly clear I could care less one way or another and that I am indeed only interested in the legal aspect of it. To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time: Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California. -- Posted by Seafercat at 11:21 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 7:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from tell me again at 5:25 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously       Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this.  Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.         thats a bit of a generalization   I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuous.   on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros    They don't have to marry everyone they fuck. no but marriage is meant to be about monogomy, people who are sexually promiscuous, shouldnt get married if they cant commit to one.   I have no tolerance for adultery, nor should anyone else yeah someone who is casually promiscuous certainly couldn't ever commit... say, i hear females in new zealand are the most promiscuous than any other female in the world, ban marriage in NZ????????? -- Posted by greatescape at 11:35 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 1:19 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself. Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea. I do believe I made it perfectly clear I could care less one way or another and that I am indeed only interested in the legal aspect of it. To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time: Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California. Translation:  I don't know what to say so I'm going to repeat myself in hopes that you go away, and dodge all questions and arguments directed at me. lollllll -- Posted by sykexl at 11:45 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 11:35 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sykexl at 1:19 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks        Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself.     Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea. I do believe I made it perfectly clear I could care less one way or another and that I am indeed only interested in the legal aspect of it.    To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time:    Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.    I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California. Translation: I don't know what to say so I'm going to repeat myself in hopes that you go away, and dodge all questions and arguments directed at me. lollllll Actually an accurate translation would be: I think you are too ignorant to possibly understand me so I'll repeat myself in hopes that you go away. You were close though. -- Posted by greatescape at 12:01 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Are you serious? All you've said so far is "I'm not going to explain my point of view because you should figure it out for yourself." It's almost funny.  And then I realize you're actually serious about this. -- Posted by sykexl at 12:07 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Here we go, take three: Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true. How do you not understand something so simple as I don't personally care about gays being allowed to marry? Gay marriage wouldn't bother me in the slightest. What I care about is the way in which it was legalized in California. I don't know how I can possibly make that anymore clear. ....your lack of comprehension skills is truly a force to be reckoned with. -- Posted by greatescape at 12:13 am on Nov. 18, 2008 haha I understood your post buddy.  I was simply asking you to explain why you think legalizing it in CA was unconstitutional and so far you haven't come up with anything. -- Posted by sykexl at 12:17 am on Nov. 18, 2008 And I'm simply telling you to figure it out yourself. -- Posted by greatescape at 12:19 am on Nov. 18, 2008 You should try out for your school's debate team.  You would rock everyone's socks off -- Posted by sykexl at 12:22 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Perhaps. However, this isn't a debate. I don't need to turn everything into one while it seems you do. Tell me, why are you so interested in proving yourself to be right? -- Posted by greatescape at 12:25 am on Nov. 18, 2008 You are a rather strange individual. I just wanted to know what exactly you found unconstitutional about the legalization of gay marriage.  I really don't think that's too much to ask for.  Apparently so. Why I am still replying to you?  rofl. Maybe because I find your 'logic' funny. -- Posted by sykexl at 12:34 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 12:25 am on Nov. 18, 2008 I really don't think that's too much to ask for. Apparently so. Don't worry about it, I forgive you. Why I am still replying to you? rofl. Maybe because I find your 'logic' funny. Entertainment is key. -- Posted by gronk at 5:46 am on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from Seafercat at 6:21 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 7:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from tell me again at 5:25 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 marriage needs to be taken more seriously    Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this. Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.           thats a bit of a generalization       I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuous.       on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros   They don't have to marry everyone they fuck.    no but marriage is meant to be about  monogomy, people who are sexually promiscuous, shouldnt get married if they cant commit to one.  I have no tolerance for adultery, nor should anyone else yeah someone who is casually promiscuous certainly couldn't ever commit...   say, i hear females in new zealand are the most promiscuous than any other female in the world, ban marriage in NZ????????? stop committing the straw person fallacy Pages: 1 2 3  Next