This would be considered grooming

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#76

Post by Animal »

Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#77

Post by Burn1dwn »

Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
Too bad you weren't born earlier. You seem like you would have loved "Seperate But Equal" laws.
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#78

Post by Burn1dwn »

Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
He has got to be trolling. No one is this stupid.
User avatar
peterosehaircut
No life apart from this stupid forum board
Posts: 1899
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:30 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#79

Post by peterosehaircut »

My life would be a lot better if hetro marriage was illegal.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28028
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#80

Post by Animal »

:lol: x 1,000
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#81

Post by Deathproof »

Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
If everyone had the same rights and restrictions? Yes. Because that is literally what equal rights means.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#82

Post by Deathproof »

Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:07 am
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
Too bad you weren't born earlier. You seem like you would have loved "Seperate But Equal" laws.
No, I wouldn't. I'm not a Democrat. That was their thing.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#83

Post by Deathproof »

Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pm
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pm
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pm

Well, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
I will give it a go.

Your question was "prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?"

My answer: "the right to marry the person that they wanted to marry?"
And there you have it. They actually DID have the right to marry the person they wanted to marry -- so long as that person was of the opposite gender.
Normal people ALSO had the right to marry someone the wanted to marry, so long as that person was of the opposite gender.

Now, admittedly, gays did not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. BUT, normal people also did not have the right to marry people of the same gender.

Everybody's rights were equal. It was never an equal rights issue.
People who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink in
They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?
Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#84

Post by Deathproof »

Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 am
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
He has got to be trolling. No one is this stupid.
"Stupid". Okay, so i assume you can show what was incorrect?
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#85

Post by Burn1dwn »

Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:08 am
No, I wouldn't. I'm not a Democrat. That was their thing.
People with your logic and empathy levels are what allowed it to exist for close to 60 years. Regardless of how they voted.
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#86

Post by Burn1dwn »

Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:10 am
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 am
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
He has got to be trolling. No one is this stupid.
"Stupid". Okay, so i assume you can show what was incorrect?
Gay marriage bans were struck down by the court because they definitely violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Do you understand that some states allowed gay marriage before the SC decisions? Did traditional marriages disappear if the married couple had to move to a different state because of work?

Do you understand that there are more benefits to marriage than just being able to have sinless sex and procreate? Taxes, Social Security, real estate, pensions, insurance, etc. are all tied to marital status.

So tell us again how gheys being free to marry someone that they weren't attracted to or in love with, proves they were treated equally.
User avatar
Geist
Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am

Re: This would be considered grooming

#87

Post by Geist »

Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:32 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:10 am
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 am
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
He has got to be trolling. No one is this stupid.
"Stupid". Okay, so i assume you can show what was incorrect?
Gay marriage bans were struck down by the court because they definitely violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Do you understand that some states allowed gay marriage before the SC decisions? Did traditional marriages disappear if the married couple had to move to a different state because of work?

Do you understand that there are more benefits to marriage than just being able to have sinless sex and procreate? Taxes, Social Security, real estate, pensions, insurance, etc. are all tied to marital status.

So tell us again how gheys being free to marry someone that they weren't attracted to or in love with, proves they were treated equally.
Asking the broken brained if they understand something is just setting them up to lie. I approve of this public humiliation
User avatar
Geist
Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am

Re: This would be considered grooming

#88

Post by Geist »

Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:09 am
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pm
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pm
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pm

I will give it a go.

Your question was "prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?"

My answer: "the right to marry the person that they wanted to marry?"
And there you have it. They actually DID have the right to marry the person they wanted to marry -- so long as that person was of the opposite gender.
Normal people ALSO had the right to marry someone the wanted to marry, so long as that person was of the opposite gender.

Now, admittedly, gays did not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. BUT, normal people also did not have the right to marry people of the same gender.

Everybody's rights were equal. It was never an equal rights issue.
People who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink in
They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?
Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
You've already been corrected, but being unfixable stupid you'll keep digging yourself in deeper. Have at it lil guy, embarass yourself all you want 🤷
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#89

Post by Deathproof »

Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:32 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:10 am
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:10 am
Animal wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:39 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:31 pm
Normal people could marry who they wanted within certain limitations. Gays were subject to the exact same limitations. Nobody had rights somebody else didn't have. Nobody lacked rights someone else had.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on favor of anyone being able to marry anyone of legal age. I have no issue with hays marrying each other. My only issue is the false portrayal of it as an equal rights issue.
I understand.

If you lived in a world that had laws that said that people could only marry people that were the same "handed" as they are. Left handed people can marry left handed people. And right handed people can marry right handed people. But you are free to marry any person of the same hand as you no matter which handed you are.

But you were right handed and you fell in love with a left handed girl. And you were not allowed to marry her. Would you feel like you had equal rights to everyone else?
He has got to be trolling. No one is this stupid.
"Stupid". Okay, so i assume you can show what was incorrect?
Gay marriage bans were struck down by the court because they definitely violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Okay, and?
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:32 pmDo you understand that some states allowed gay marriage before the SC decisions? Did traditional marriages disappear if the married couple had to move to a different state because of work?
No. But if they had married a person of the same sex, it would have. Just like a gay person's who was married to someone of the same sex. Because the laws and rights were EQUAL.
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:32 pmDo you understand that there are more benefits to marriage than just being able to have sinless sex and procreate? Taxes, Social Security, real estate, pensions, insurance, etc. are all tied to marital status.
You can have sinless sex and procreat regardless of being married or not married. But that tax, social security, pension, insurance, etc that were all tied to marital status were treated the same for normal people as they were for gays: You got the benefits if you married someone of the opposite sex, and you didn't if you married someone of the same sex. That rule applied for gay people and normal people uniformly. EQUALLY.
Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:32 pmSo tell us again how gheys being free to marry someone that they weren't attracted to or in love with, proves they were treated equally.
Because they had the exact same rights as normal people, which is the literal definition of equal. Both gays and normal people could marry someone they were attracted to and in love with, of the opposite gender. Neither gay people nor normal people could marry someone of the same sex, no matter how attracted to and in love with that person they were.
Equal rights. Equal restrictions. Applied equally and uniformly.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Deathproof
UJR гитара герой чемпион
Posts: 5089
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:42 pm
Location: Чикаго, Иллинойс
Interests: музыка, сиськи, литература, сыр и Леттеркенни
Occupation: Я играю на гитаре для жизни

Re: This would be considered grooming

#90

Post by Deathproof »

Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:09 am
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pm
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pm

And there you have it. They actually DID have the right to marry the person they wanted to marry -- so long as that person was of the opposite gender.
Normal people ALSO had the right to marry someone the wanted to marry, so long as that person was of the opposite gender.

Now, admittedly, gays did not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. BUT, normal people also did not have the right to marry people of the same gender.

Everybody's rights were equal. It was never an equal rights issue.
People who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink in
They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?
Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
You've already been corrected, but being unfixable stupid you'll keep digging yourself in deeper. Have at it lil guy, embarass yourself all you want 🤷
I haven't been corrected. Corrected would imply there was something incorrect.

There wasn't. I'm sorry (but not surprised) you don't understand the meaning of basic, elementary school-level words like "equal", but your illiteracy makes you stupid, not me. Poor lil guy.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
User avatar
Geist
Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am

Re: This would be considered grooming

#91

Post by Geist »

Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:55 pm
Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:09 am
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pm
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pm

People who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink in
They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?
Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
You've already been corrected, but being unfixable stupid you'll keep digging yourself in deeper. Have at it lil guy, embarass yourself all you want 🤷
I haven't been corrected. Corrected would imply there was something incorrect.

There wasn't. I'm sorry (but not surprised) you don't understand the meaning of basic, elementary school-level words like "equal", but your illiteracy makes you stupid, not me. Poor lil guy.
So sayeth the demonstrably demonstrablest retard. Ya keep aiming for the stars but end up nutting in your own mouth. Don't forget to swallow, lil guy :guitarred:
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#92

Post by Burn1dwn »

Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:55 pm There wasn't. I'm sorry (but not surprised) you don't understand the meaning of basic, elementary school-level words like "equal", but your illiteracy makes you stupid, not me. Poor lil guy.
You know that you can have a logically valid argument with a false premise right. That is where your disconnect is.
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: This would be considered grooming

#93

Post by Burn1dwn »

Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:03 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:55 pm
Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:09 am
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm
Deathproof wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pm

They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?
Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
You've already been corrected, but being unfixable stupid you'll keep digging yourself in deeper. Have at it lil guy, embarass yourself all you want 🤷
I haven't been corrected. Corrected would imply there was something incorrect.

There wasn't. I'm sorry (but not surprised) you don't understand the meaning of basic, elementary school-level words like "equal", but your illiteracy makes you stupid, not me. Poor lil guy.
So sayeth the demonstrably demonstrablest retard. Ya keep aiming for the stars but end up nutting in your own mouth. Don't forget to swallow, lil guy :guitarred:
I still think he is trolling.
User avatar
Geist
Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am

Re: This would be considered grooming

#94

Post by Geist »

Burn1dwn wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:29 pm
Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:03 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:55 pm
Geist wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm
Deathproof wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:09 am
Geist wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:38 pm

Literally every time you leave, because you're a joke
I see. So you CAN'T point to anything I said that was incorrect. Yeah, I knew you couldn't. Poor lil guy.
You've already been corrected, but being unfixable stupid you'll keep digging yourself in deeper. Have at it lil guy, embarass yourself all you want 🤷
I haven't been corrected. Corrected would imply there was something incorrect.

There wasn't. I'm sorry (but not surprised) you don't understand the meaning of basic, elementary school-level words like "equal", but your illiteracy makes you stupid, not me. Poor lil guy.
So sayeth the demonstrably demonstrablest retard. Ya keep aiming for the stars but end up nutting in your own mouth. Don't forget to swallow, lil guy :guitarred:
I still think he is trolling.
Oh for sure. In his own limited capacity, he's doing his best
Post Reply