I liked Ron Paul until I heard he supports gay marriage.

actually, it had nothing to do with anything I said, therefore it contradicted nothing.

like I said, you tend to dwell in irrelevancy.

 

nonsense. no law makes a daddy the daddy, if he isn't the daddy.

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!! You dont even have a clue as to what Im even talking about, but that didnt stop you from declaring what I was talking about, applies in the case of homosexual couples as well because of adoption. Mother giving birth to the child creates her parental obligations and being married to that woman creates the fathers parental obligations.

Never said that, but strawmen is all you have.

 

???? That by definition is what presumptions in the law do. The husband is presumed to be the father, regardless of whether he is actually the father.

 

??? like I said. nonsense, no law makes the daddy the daddy, if he isn't the daddy.

If daddy isn't the daddy, he has no responsibility or obligation.


put down the shovel.

 

Noooo. The satandard is you people, instead of simply using the quote function to actuially reproduce, what Ive said, you instead tell us what I have said, creating yet another strawman to refurte.

 

nonsense. myself, and others, constantly quote, then refute your arguments. You then whine and cry strawman. you've been doing it for months. MANY people have called you on your whining and crying. You don't fool anyone.

 

So for a woman, giving birth creates parental obligations, but for a man, getting married creates parental obligations?

So what about people that are married but never have kids? The man still has parental obligation? To who?

What if a woman has a kid but isn't married? Is no man have any parental obligations?

I quoted the post and provided a link to the post where you said that, actually. It isn't possible for a honest and sane person to deny that you said that.

 

Not in this instance, and now would be one of those ideal times to do so. You know, as opposed to telling us what youve done in the past.

 

Nooooo, I said, and you even quoted "Mother giving birth to the child creates her parental obligations and being married to that woman creates the fathers parental obligations."

I said "Mother giving birth to the child creates her parental obligations and being married to that woman creates the fathers parental obligations." This is starting to come across as willful ignorance on your part to avoid ever actually addressing the topics YOU choose to respond to. Bob and weave, duck and jibe, with the occasional strawman for good measure. You only demonstrate the lameness of your agruments.

So full of it. I said

and you turn around and claim

Statement above says NOTHING about gays not wanting parental obligations. I said they wont have them imposed. So freakin obvious that what you quoted DIDNT say what you claimed, I mistakeny asumed you must be alleging some other post of mine contained this statement.

 

How about you mind your own (*)(*)(*)(*) business and keep out of everyone else's private lives?

Ron Paul supports gay marriage because he believes that the government should not be allowed to control what consenting adults are allowed to do, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Gay marriage has no effect on anyone aside from the people who are getting married. Therefore, it's no one else's business whether or no gays get married.

And by the way, I don't get how people like you compare homosexuality to bestiality. How are they the same? Homosexual marriage is between consenting adults. An animal can't consent, in that they are not sentient beings. Therefore, animals are not able to marry.

 

I quoted your post in the one you chose to respond to.

the portion which said "standard dixon debate tactic, make idiotic claim, idiotic claim gets refuted, whine and cry strawman" was an obvious summary of your debating style. You know it, and I know it. You now need to focus on it, because you know that you don't have a valid argument denying same sex marriage.

 

So if there is no marriage the man has no responsibility?

 

This is the ignorance of the social conservatives that I can't stand and can no longer be apart of. I am Christian, and aparently you THINK you are. One of the most important messages Jesus spoke of was "don't worry about the spec of dust in someone elses eye when you have a splinter in your own". In other words, stop worrying about what others are doing till you are perfect. Jesus advocated for people to live their lives in a way that would want to bring others to Christ, and being a hypocrite oppressing d-bag is not the way to do it. You can't force someone to follow Christ, you can only foster the accepting envioroment that encourages them to want the joyful life you have.

 

So would Jesus have us provide tax breaks and governmental entitlements to all those who engage in any abominations, or just the gays?

 

That isn't minding ones own business. Government tax breaks is not staying out of the affairs of private citizens consent to the same behavior as other adults in the private home.

 

Ah! This isnt the 1950s. You no longer need marriage to legally have sexual relations. Gays dont need anyones consent to engage in the same behavior in their home.

 

How about have the same rights as other married people do, like the ones covered under the fifth amendment? Or the right to assets after death if no will is present? Or how about medical visits the same way a wife of the husband could come and go as they pleased? There are many places of discrimination and oppression that comes with not being married, either by church or government contract. Ron doesn't want to force churches to marry gays, just no government laws forbidding it.

 

No right to tax breaks and governmental entitlements in the 5th amendmennt

Government and our society has a preference for biological parents, providing and caring for their children together, as opposed to one or none of them doing so. ABSURD to demand that we give this same preference to homosexual parents. Unless of course you think Jesus would want society to actually encourage homosexuality

 

But the freedom to tell your partner anything you want without the law forcing them to tell is part of the fifth amendment that non-married same sex partners don't have.

Naw, it is just better to teach kids hatred and oppression through government is ok and outcasting people you don't like should be encouraged right? How is that bullying epidemic going for us now?

 

We disagree on much, but I am very much supportive of your posts here. Good for you. I applaud you.
St. Augustine said, "Evangelize always, and when necessary, use words." He also believed your example was your best testimony.

 

Nonsense. Witholding tax breaks and governmental entitlements isnt hatred. No more hatred of gays then it is hatred of brothers who cant marry. You just want to use marriage laws to normalize homosexuality. To help the homosexduals feel better about themselves for being homosexual. Like I said, libertarian my ass. Social engineering via mandate of the state.

 

Why do you keep bringing up tax breaks? That is not even what I am talking about. You are telling someone, they can't do what other people in love do. And don't try to pretend that homosexuality doesn't happen in nature. It does in every mammal on earth.

And I also don't see how you feel like you have the right to judge what others do. Are you God?