Send a Message
to lides

Comments

16,725

Joined

Jan 29, 2008

Badges

lides Profile

Recent Posts

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

No, KiMare, you just displayed the depths of your idiocy. The historical precedent of other cultures has no bearing upon the laws of our own. You might recall that we fought for our independence, because we refused to accept the laws of another country that were limiting individual freedom, and specifically were requiring adherence to a specific religion. Your argument was childish.  (11 hrs ago | post #663)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

They don't seek equality under the law, twit. Learn to count.  (11 hrs ago | post #662)

Gay/Lesbian

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

Frankie, it doesn't seek equality under the law, the state in in no way obligated to expand marriage law to include polygamy. Learn to count, moron.  (20 hrs ago | post #797)

Gay/Lesbian

US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, refusal to ...

QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]SCOT US in a 5-4 ruling basically confirmed the state's authority to define marriage, or to put it another way, what the state defined marriage as, the Feds would are legally obligated to recognize.[/QUOTE] That's very nice, Pietro, but if affirms Sheeple's question, it does not negate it.  (21 hrs ago | post #836)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

No, I am merely indicating that historical precedent is utterly irrelevant. This is just another indication that you lack an argument with a rational basis. Would you care to try a big boy argument?  (21 hrs ago | post #657)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

And? Are you trying to claim that America is not an exceptional country committed to equality under the law for all, making her superior than those governments that preceded her?  (21 hrs ago | post #653)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

We aren't bound by historical precedent, not even our own. Although you may not understand the issue, most Americans re committed to equality under the law for all. The fact of the matter is that you can provide no valid reason why same sex couples should be barred from legal marriage.  (Wednesday | post #649)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

No, Frankie, it's not. That you do not understand the argument in question is not surprising, because you are an idiot. That you can't understand why polygamy has no relevance to the topic at hand merely reinforces the notion that you are an idiotFrankie, you are an idiot. I have never claimed that polygamists should be denied marriage because they can't count. I have said that polygamous marriage need not be enacted, because it doesn't seek equality under the law. I have said that you are too stupid to count, which is why you don't understand that polygamy doesn't seek equality under the lawThe only laughable thing is your inability to count or understand the even concept of equality, and you inability to understand what is relevant to the topic. Congratulations, Frankie, you're an idiot.  (Tuesday Sep 16 | post #637)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

They've sued only Christians who broke the law. Religious freedom does not allow one to pick and choose what laws they will follow. Render unto Caesar...  (Tuesday Sep 16 | post #3558)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

You truly are a special brand of stupid, KiMare. One wonders what you were attempting to say?  (Monday Sep 15 | post #631)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Even if Wondering were to read the post, it is doubtful that he would actually possess the intelligence and reading comprehension to understand it. This is why they so frequently respond only to snippets so short that their original meaning is utterly incomprehensible. Neither Wondering, nor Brian_G, are very bright.  (Monday Sep 15 | post #3549)

Gay/Lesbian

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

It is no more stupid than claiming that polygamists seek equality under the law, when the very definition of polygamy clearly illustrates that is not the case. Polygamy will not come to pass because it does not seek equality under the law. Even in the recent case in Utah, they merely sought the decriminalization of cohabitation, it made no movement whatsoever towards allowing polygamy. However, on the plus side, Frankie finally has a thread where he can make posts that are remotely relevant.  (Monday Sep 15 | post #450)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

What is all boils down to is that the baker broke the law of the state of ColoradoHere's a clue kiddo. You can't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to break the law by denying service to those who hold different beliefs. If you could, it would be the end of ACTUAL religious freedomThe US Supreme Court will be bound to follow law and precedent. Neither are in your favor on this issueNo, DisRespect, you support the freedoms of those you agree with, and support businesses breaking the law by projecting their religious moral views onto others. You are a bigot, you don't believe in freedom, and you support those who have admittedly broken the law.  (Monday Sep 15 | post #3540)

Gay/Lesbian

4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban

Children are an interest in preventing incestuous relationships. They are a non issue in the case of same sex marriage. Are you an imbecile?  (Monday Sep 15 | post #621)

Gay/Lesbian

US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, refusal to ...

Pietro, the fact of the matter remains that you are lauding three decisions upholding existing bans, one of which all but asks to be overturned upon appeal, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of decisions striking such bans down. Face it, kiddo, you're backing a losing horsePietro, do you know what conjugal means? Based upon your usage, I don't think you doNo, it isn't. no one has questioned the right of the states to define marriage. They have questioned whether existing bans are constitutional. Grow a brain, PietroNot necessarily. Can you indicate any compelling governmental interest served by such a definition that explicitly excludes same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage, and begins to indicate that you aren't an idiotPietro, you continually prove that you do not understand the definition of the word conjugalPietro, conjugal does not mean what you think it doesI'm not ignoring anything, you've yet to offer an argument that meets a rational basis testThe problem, Pietro, is that you are utterly incapable of offering a rational argument, or providing the first reason why same sex couples should be excluded from equality under the law to marry.  (Monday Sep 15 | post #753)

Q & A with lides

Headline:

No Headline available

Hometown:

Defiance, Ohio

Neighborhood:

brow

Local Favorites:

Patrick's, The Lantern, Viva, Barrington Brewery

I Belong To:

The Human Race

When I'm Not on Topix:

I am elsewhere

Read My Forum Posts Because:

Read them or not, my opinion is my own.

I'm Listening To:

Tosca

Read This Book:

It Can Happen Here

Favorite Things:

brown paper packages tied up with strings

I Believe In:

equality