Off-point at your operational level, important distinction. And before only 7 years ago you mean? Then until the 17 before that when being queerfolk was a legitimate excuse to deny someone. You can keep teaching small steps back but youre just being a contrarian for the sake of it.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:52 pmCompletely off-point. I'll ask again: prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:28 pmhttps://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... %20reality.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:21 pmPrior to gay marriage being legalized nationwide, what right did gay people not have that normal people did have?
This would be considered grooming
Moderator: Biker
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3738
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
Snopes rates this as true.Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:57 pmNo intelligent person cares what you think, dipshitBiker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:17 pmI've been pro-gay marriage long before the mainstream Democrat party was. You do understand that there are not just two streams of thought right, or are you too dense and unsophisticated to understand that?Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:26 pmOh yeah I forgot you retards still think gays having rights diminishes what you have. Pathetic knuckle draggers smhBiker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:22 pmYeah, because thats what its about. Dimwit
I think you're lost:
viewtopic.php?t=4
Care to guess where I think you fall?
- 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
No, just off-point entirely. My operational level is higher than yours.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:12 amOff-point at your operational level, important distinction.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:52 pmCompletely off-point. I'll ask again: prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:28 pmhttps://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... %20reality.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:21 pmPrior to gay marriage being legalized nationwide, what right did gay people not have that normal people did have?
No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
"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
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 amNo, just off-point entirely. My operational level is higher than yours.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:12 amOff-point at your operational level, important distinction.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:52 pmCompletely off-point. I'll ask again: prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:28 pmhttps://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... %20reality.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:21 pmPrior to gay marriage being legalized nationwide, what right did gay people not have that normal people did have?
No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
To be enlightened, you have to be enlightenable, lil guy
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3738
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
Is this a riddle? You seem to be giving the answer in the question itself.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 am No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
- Charliesheen
- Snarky Fucker
- Posts: 9252
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
Gays have the right to incubate and spread super diseases without incurring blame. Not all of them. Just the ones who have relations with a different partner at a frequency that non-rock star breeders can’t keep up with.
Got another one on the horizon.
Got another one on the horizon.
In the US, 244 cases have been reported, with California having the most cases, with 62 being detected in the state.
It's followed by New York with 37, and Florida and Illinois both with 27.
Dr Sophia Makki, incident director at UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said the outbreak in the UK is continuing to grow.
"We expect cases to continue to rise further in the coming days and weeks.
"If you are attending large events over the summer or having sex with new partners, be alert to any monkeypox symptoms so you can get tested rapidly and help avoid passing the infection on.
READ MORE ON MONKEYPOX
Monkeypox cases continue to rise in UK as number of new infections revealed
CLIMBING CASES Monkeypox cases continue to rise in UK as number of new infections revealed
Vaccines to be rolled out to more Brits as monkeypox spreads - are you eligible?
JABS UP Vaccines to be rolled out to more Brits as monkeypox spreads - are you eligible?
"Currently the majority of cases have been in men who are gay, bisexual or have sex with men.
"However, anyone who has had close contact with an individual with symptoms is also at increased risk."
Last edited by Charliesheen on Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A cunt is a cunt by any other name.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28156
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
good one.Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:09 amIs this a riddle? You seem to be giving the answer in the question itself.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 am No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
- 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
Exactly. I still hear liberals trying to demonize President Ronald Reagan, who should be a canonized Saint by now, because when the queers were spreading AIDS all over the place and whining about how the gay community was suffering, he dared to suggest that they stop indiscriminately fucking everything that moved. How dare he suggest they modify their behavior and take a little responsibility for themselves?Charliesheen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:11 am Gays have the right to incubate and spread super diseases without incurring blame. Not all of them. Just the ones who have relations with a different partner at a frequency that non-rock star breeders can’t keep up with.
"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
- 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
Still dodging the question. I see.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:30 amDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 amNo, just off-point entirely. My operational level is higher than yours.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:12 amOff-point at your operational level, important distinction.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:52 pmCompletely off-point. I'll ask again: prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?Geist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:28 pmhttps://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/differe ... %20reality.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:21 pm
Prior to gay marriage being legalized nationwide, what right did gay people not have that normal people did have?
No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
To be enlightened, you have to be enlightenable, 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
- 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
No, I'm not. I'm asking a legit question of a misinformed individual who thinks gay marriage was an equal rights issue. It most certainly was not, and that's a demonstrable fact.Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:09 amIs this a riddle? You seem to be giving the answer in the question itself.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 am No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
"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
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
No question was dodged, which would be noticed if you the victim of an unfixable broken brain. Poor lil guyDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:39 pmStill dodging the question. I see.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:30 amDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:19 amNo, just off-point entirely. My operational level is higher than yours.Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:12 amOff-point at your operational level, important distinction.Deathproof wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:52 pmCompletely off-point. I'll ask again: prior to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage, what right did gays NOT have that normal people DID have?
No, I'm dumbing things down to your level so that you can understand. So I will ask, AGAIN, what right did gays NOT have prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide that normal people DID have? Please, enlighten us all.
To be enlightened, you have to be enlightenable, lil guy
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
Poor lil guyDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:39 pmExactly. I still hear liberals trying to demonize President Ronald Reagan, who should be a canonized Saint by now, because when the queers were spreading AIDS all over the place and whining about how the gay community was suffering, he dared to suggest that they stop indiscriminately fucking everything that moved. How dare he suggest they modify their behavior and take a little responsibility for themselves?Charliesheen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:11 am Gays have the right to incubate and spread super diseases without incurring blame. Not all of them. Just the ones who have relations with a different partner at a frequency that non-rock star breeders can’t keep up with.
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
10 years to buy an AA in humanities, now that's an achievable goal for a lil guy
- 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
4 years, with a long gap in the middle to record platinum albums and tour the world, thank you. And it's a BA. Don't be jealous. Just because I'm smarter than you doesn't mean you can't achieve something someday.
"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
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
Whatever you need to tell yourself lil guyDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:01 pm4 years, with a long gap in the middle to record platinum albums and tour the world, thank you. And it's a BA. Don't be jealous. Just because I'm smarter than you doesn't mean you can't achieve something someday.
- CHEEZY17
- Libertarian house cat
- Posts: 14967
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:25 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
Geist couldnt make it as a security guard. You gotta cut him some slack.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
- 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
Well, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
"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
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28156
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
I will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
- 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
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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.
"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
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28156
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: This would be considered grooming
But I think you see that the point is when you consider that "normal" people could marry who they wanted and gay people could not. That is what changed. And my understanding of that point has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pmAnd 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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
People who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink inDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pmAnd 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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.
- 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
They don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pmPeople who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink inDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pmAnd 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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.
"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
- 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
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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:04 pmBut I think you see that the point is when you consider that "normal" people could marry who they wanted and gay people could not. That is what changed. And my understanding of that point has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pmAnd 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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.
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.
"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
- Geist
- Big Meaty Lobster Cocks
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:10 am
Re: This would be considered grooming
Literally every time you leave, because you're a jokeDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:28 pmThey don't, because there's no stupidity. Unless you can somehow demonstrate how anything I said was incorrect?Geist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:14 pmPeople who know you irl laugh at your stupidity behind your back. Let it sink inDeathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:57 pmAnd 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.Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:48 pmI will give it a go.Deathproof wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:42 pmWell, he can't answer lay-up questions, so I bet you're right.
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?"
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.