Thread: Using Lawrence v Texas Fuels Polygamay In Equal Consideration As Gays For Marriage

Originally Posted by Come Home America

Well it is a fact that I certainly have never met an intelligent homophobe. The people in this thread seem to split between smart, pro-LGBTQ people versus dumb, anti-equality morons.

"intelligent homophobe" is an oxymoron. Homophobia, by definition, is due to the lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by texmaster

We understand the gay militants can't justify their moronic emotions and translate into an actual argument as to why homosexuality and only homosexuality should be granted state sponsored marriage. Every time they call us "homophobes" for demanding an actual argument not based on emotion it only makes them look like emotional teenage children driven by emotion and not facts.

See what I mean?

Originally Posted by Silhouette

I wonder what gays would say if people called them stupid or not rising to the level of failure? I'd bet we'd hear from the moderators about that. Gays don't want equality. They want unchecked power and undue influence without question.

Lets talk about polygamy and Lawrence v Texas and keep the verbal abuse to a dull roar, OK gay-advocates?

I'd like you to repost what you originally posted in here before you changed it to the above. Why? Because I've said some very nice things to you in these anti-gay threads. Look them up.

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

If a contract is voidable by the minor, or their guardian, then it is not a legally binding contract. BINDING means BINDING. Not voidable.

LOL If it wasn't "binding" then no company would ever have to pay for their labor. Honestly, think before posting.

The very fact that they can enter into an agreement where they get paid for their work is BINDING. The company can't just refuse to pay.

Originally Posted by Come Home America

No, we are driven by reason and intelligence.

Still waiting for your argument I've only asked for 3 times.

The homophobes, on the other hand, take pride in their own ignorance.

Sigh. More emotional rhetoric without supporting evidence. Why am I not surprised?

You people know you have not a single valid argument against marriage equality, but you are proud to be bigots nonetheless.

I've already presented my arguments. I'm still waiting for yours so I can tear them apart.

See what I mean?

See what? Did you even bother to read what I was responding to? Of course not. Did you present an arguement that would allow for homosexuals and only homosexuals to be granted state sponsored marriage as requested? Of course not.

Thanks for staying predictable.

Originally Posted by fishmatter

The PFJ ended up fighting for a man's right to have babies, which is about as useful as a gay man's right to marry a woman.

The big joke is that in 50 years anybody still alive will vehemently deny ever having been homophobic.

It was down to the splitters.

Now, where are we?

On the point of people being able to marry or not marry. A man can marry a woman; two men can't marry; two women can't marry. Sexual preference has nothing to do with it, it is about same-sex marriage being illegal. That is, the right to marry is being denied on the basis of sex. That can and should be changed and there are sound reasons for doing so.

The primary reason is that all people should have equal rights or the concept of human rights becomes ridiculous.

If marriage is a human right,
And it is denied to people of the same sex
Then people of the same sex are denied a human right.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Still waiting for your argument I've only asked for 3 times.



Sigh. More emotional rhetoric without supporting evidence. Why am I not surprised?



I've already presented my arguments. I'm still waiting for yours so I can tear them apart.

You haven't presented (*)(*)(*)(*). Come up with a valid well-reasoned argument against marriage equality for LGBTQ folk, or else shut up and let the march toward equality take its course.

Pray tell....what is "Q"?

Is it polygamy? Why or why not?