Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

So give me your definition of it so I can c :corn: omment.

I'm not engaging in another bout of circular reasoning with you. If you can't answer the question the first time, I'll accept that you don't have an answer. Thanks for playing :wave:

Less than 5% of the population has green eyes. Why don't we just deny them these rights and benefit your wallet that way? You're born with eye color just as you're born LGBT.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

So you're saying slavery can be acceptable? A simple yes or no. You can do it big guy.

How do you feel? Do you like this country? :corn:

I love most things about this country. I love where I live, I love my family, I love that I am able to make the living that I do, I love the sports. I love the freedom of speech and especially the press. I could go on and on.

I don't like the inequality, I don't like the bigotry, I don't like that our government can't accomplish a damn thing without arguing like 4 year olds. I don't like that there are so many in this country that don't give a shit about the environment. I could go on and on about this as well.

It's a great place with a lot of faults.

None of that has anything to do with slavery. Now answer the question. Can slavery be acceptable?

Can any great country or power be built without slavery? History proves otherwise. :corn:

inlet13

Man+Man, Woman+Woman, is not the equivalent to Man+Woman.

I never understood the "equality" issue here. You can't force genders to be equal. They are biological.

Moreover, I have no idea why granting gays the right to "unite" instead of "marry", wouldn't solve the issue. Keep the word that meant one definition for 1000s of years (make one side happy), and give gays the rights they want so badly (other side happy). Because it is rights they want, right? Not the word "marriage"?

Hmmm...

Not so sure about that. If they want marriage - then I think the issue is more fishy because it seems to me they want a public form of approval on their form of relationship. And there is no way that will ever really happen. There will always be some who disapprove - and that's their right. Just take the civil union, realize your relationship is biologically different - so a different word is fine, and that solves that.

Regardless, government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If they are, there should be a good reason. I can see why a government that propped up ponzi schemes would need youth. So, one reasonable argument I never understood the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't use is "future taxpayers". By definition, gay couples can't procreate and create new taxpayers. Some would respond, well some couples can't either. True. But, the government doesn't know that. They know heterocouples have the possibility to do such.

Even that argument though is bogus. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage - period, financial or not. If gov't was out. That would solve this issue entirely. And leave us to discuss real issues.

I come in here and read nonsense from both sides. You're all crazy.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Can any great country or power be built without slavery? History proves otherwise. :corn:

This is complete and utter nonsense.

So what you are saying is that slavery can be okay? It's a simple question based off of your comments. Why can't you answer it?

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

So give me your definition of it so I can c :corn: omment.

I'm not engaging in another bout of circular reasoning with you. If you can't answer the question the first time, I'll accept that you don't have an answer. Thanks for playing :wave:

Less than 5% of the population has green eyes. Why don't we just deny them these rights and benefit your wallet that way? You're born with eye color just as you're born LGBT.

You're asking me a question to a word that has a very broad definition. It's liking asking me if I like the color red. There are 100's of shades of red. Define the word and I will answer appropriately.


And to address your second point concerning the green eyed analogy...there are a lot of people who feel you weren't born LGBT and that it's a choice. I feel no need to comment how I feel becasue it's irrelevant...I'm just pointing that out.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

And we now see the absurd lengths to which the "supporting traditional marriage" crowd will go to to avoid having to say "because I think what you guys do is icky."

Hey, that's not fair. I support gay marriage AND I'm proud to admit that I think what you guys do is icky!!!

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Can any great country or power be built without slavery? History proves otherwise. :corn:

This is complete and utter nonsense.

So what you are saying is that slavery can be okay? It's a simple question based off of your comments. Why can't you answer it?

And like I have said any great country can not be built without slavery.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

So give me your definition of it so I can c :corn: omment.

I'm not engaging in another bout of circular reasoning with you. If you can't answer the question the first time, I'll accept that you don't have an answer. Thanks for playing :wave:

Less than 5% of the population has green eyes. Why don't we just deny them these rights and benefit your wallet that way? You're born with eye color just as you're born LGBT.

You're asking me a question to a word that has a very broad definition. It's liking asking me if I like the color red. There are 100's of shades of red. Define the word and I will answer appropriately.

Unreal. Stop dancing around it. We're going on 3 pages. Let's use the first sentence of Wikipedia which about sums it up

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work

Now can that be acceptable?

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Can any great country or power be built without slavery? History proves otherwise. :corn:

This is complete and utter nonsense.

So what you are saying is that slavery can be okay? It's a simple question based off of your comments. Why can't you answer it?

And like I have said any great country can not be built without slavery.

I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?

Godfather.

hay Mr.Jones ! how about another cup of kool-aid

Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

This is complete and utter nonsense.

So what you are saying is that slavery can be okay? It's a simple question based off of your comments. Why can't you answer it?

And like I have said any great country can not be built without slavery.

I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?

Somehow this is going to be turned into a USA dominates the world because it was able to trade people as property and avoid giving 'icky' folks the same rights. Dominate the world! Ban tiny umbrellas!

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?

No great country or empire has been built without it.

Johnny Abruzzo

cincybearcat wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

And we now see the absurd lengths to which the "supporting traditional marriage" crowd will go to to avoid having to say "because I think what you guys do is icky."

Hey, that's not fair. I support gay marriage AND I'm proud to admit that I think what you guys do is icky!!!

Very nice! On the other hand, what the ladies do, I may not necessarily describe as icky.

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Somehow this is going to be turned into a USA dominates the world because it was able to trade people as property and avoid giving 'icky' folks the same rights. Dominate the world! Ban tiny umbrellas!

It could. I don't have any problems or issues with tiny umbrellas though.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

Man+Man, Woman+Woman, is not the equivalent to Man+Woman.

I never understood the "equality" issue here. You can't force genders to be equal. They are biological.

Moreover, I have no idea why granting gays the right to "unite" instead of "marry", wouldn't solve the issue. Keep the word that meant one definition for 1000s of years (make one side happy), and give gays the rights they want so badly (other side happy). Because it is rights they want, right? Not the word "marriage"?

Hmmm...

Not so sure about that. If they want marriage - then I think the issue is more fishy because it seems to me they want a public form of approval on their form of relationship. And there is no way that will ever really happen. There will always be some who disapprove - and that's their right. Just take the civil union, realize your relationship is biologically different - so a different word is fine, and that solves that.

Regardless, government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If they are, there should be a good reason. I can see why a government that propped up ponzi schemes would need youth. So, one reasonable argument I never understood the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't use is "future taxpayers". By definition, gay couples can't procreate and create new taxpayers. Some would respond, well some couples can't either. True. But, the government doesn't know that. They know heterocouples have the possibility to do such.

Even that argument though is bogus. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage - period, financial or not. If gov't was out. That would solve this issue entirely. And leave us to discuss real issues.

I come in here and read nonsense from both sides. You're all crazy.

Interesting post...I agree with a lot of it..but I dont like the idea of a group of folks having to settle for right under a different description. Its just as easy to say, if gay rights opponents are OK giving gays the same rights under different terminology, then why not just accept it for what it is, Marriage?

But yeah, get govt out of this sticky situation.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?

No great country or empire has been built without it.

Alright, I am just going to make the assumption that under the circumstances that have been described that you believe it is fine to own, trade and force human beings to work. That is correct, right? I thought you told it like it is, tough guy. Why can't you answer my question?

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I don't buy that for a second. So slavery is acceptable if you are building a "great" country?

No great country or empire has been built without it.

Alright, I am just going to make the assumption that under the circumstances that have been described that you believe it is fine to own, trade and force human beings to work. That is correct, right? I thought you told it like it is, tough guy. Why can't you answer my question?

And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.



I like being called a tough guy.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.



I like being called a tough guy.

It's unreal how you have danced around this question. Because it was used doesn't mean that it is right or that it was a needed.

So it's okay?

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

And like I have said...no great country of empire has ever been created without the use of slave labor and the United States is a great country...super power some would say.

Technically, all countries were built on slavery at some point in time. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyplace that has a squeaky-clean past.

callen

DS1119 wrote:

In a democracy the majority rules correct? Unless they have restrucured government since I went to school.

Your school didn't learn you on the constitution?

Your on PJ site so guessing you've heard WMA....listen again.

You may be in majority now...but not for long.