I Am FOR Gay Heople Having Equal Rights.

My claim

and the quote from the court.

 

All court cases are brought by demand, even if a law is unconstitutional, it will not e reviewed and overturned unless a case is brought by the court by individuals with standing, "demanding" and demonstrating that the law is in violation.

 

and the court does not rule that only gays or lesbians can marry.

 

No one ever claimed that the court ruled that only gays or lesbians can marry. You kicked the Shiite out of that strawman.

 

same old games. make an argument, have that argument demolished, then whine and cry strawan. it's pathetic and doesn't fool anyone.

 

No, silly. Evidently you can't comprehend a difference between "only a gay couple WOULD WANT to marry" and " only gays or lesbians CAN marry". Are ya stuck on stupid?

 

you don't fool anyone with your pathetic equivocation games dixon. the intent of your post was perfectly clear. you got called on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and as usual, you whine and cry strawman and act like you aren't making that argument.

 

Yes it was. The confusion is only on your part

 

I am not confused. that's why I called you on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and directly refuted your statement.

 

It's pretty clear that you are deliberately obfuscating things. People aren't stupid, dixon; even if they are, they are rarely ALWAYS so. People can see through your tactics and homophobic nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Yes.

 

Hopelessly confused. Would be sad if it werent so amusing to watch

 

not confused in any way. which is why I keep on pointing out and refuting the same tired arguments you've been posting for months. your games don't fool anyone. which is why I'm not the only one who calls you on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

The same tired strawmen. At least put in some effort to come up with some new strawmen.

 

not my strawman. you pathetically make tired and refuted arguments, then whine and cry strawman when they are demolished. it's childish, pathetic and doesn't fool anyone. which is why people constantly call you on it.

 

But you haven't demolished anything. The quote from the case proves my assertion regarding the case . Your generic denials are meaningless

 

of course I have. repeatedly.

except it doesn't. all that has happened is the gender restriction has been removed.

which is why I don't offer generic denials. I routinely destroy your idiotic circular arguments.

 

LOLOLOL!!! So hopelessly confused that youve lost your ability to distinguish between my arguments and your strawmen youve created in order to avoid addressing my arguments.

My argument youve claimed to have demolished

and my evidence-

Got anything other than your emotional rants void of even a shred of RELATIVE substance?

 

Maybe the fact that the court declaring that "ONLY gay or lesbian couples would want to marry someone of the same sex" is not the same thing as saying the court declaring that "only gay or lesbian couples would be allowed to marry someone of the same sex", which is the straw man you were building. The court would have said that for the exact same reason that someone might say "only heterosexuals would want to marry someone of the opposite sex". It's a generalization, and there are certainly a minority of exceptions to the rule where even homosexuals have married someone of the opposite sex for any given number of different reasons, but none of that changes the fact no statement has been made or implied to suggest that same-sex marriage will be restricted to lesbians or gays... only that, in general, they are the only ones who would want them.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! No thats Rahls strawman. Thats why I SAID "ONLY gay or lesbian couples would want to marry someone of the same sex". Rahl is the one who took my words "WOULD WANT" and twisted them to mean "can".

 

Well what's the contention in, if that's not your point and your only concern is that the judgment was on behalf of those who would want it, almost exclusively homosexuals.... well ok, so what? Should the government be concerned about waisting their time considering debating over something that nobody wants or cares about? If heterosexuals want to enter a same-sex marriage, they can, there's no debate and no need for debate as sexual orientation has never been a criteria for entering a marriage... only gender.

 

Why are you bothering? He'll just change his tune again. Bottom line is this- he doesn't want people of the same sex to marry. He's looking for any excuse to prevent same sex marriage.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Deny, deny, deny and deny again. And if that doesnt work just ask so what.

- - - Updated - - -

My tune is consistant. Its the strawmen created by others that are all over the place.

 

you can keep posting the same ruling over and over if you want. I will simply keep pointing out that you are incorrect and remain refuted.

 

it's your own strawmen. you make an argument, it gets destroyed, you whine and cry strawman saying you never made such an argument. it's pathetic and doesn't fool anyone.

 

and I'm merely asking you the point of your assertion, not denying anything. I do not see any significance ot the point that a judge said only same-sex couples would want to marry someone of the same sex.... As a generalization, it's true, just like only heterosexuals would want to marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not denying anything, I just don't see your point.