5/3/2013 2:29 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
But, out of curiousity, did you suddenly discover this was going nowhere on page 132?

That seems to make you a bit slow. 
Highlighting your stupidity has become somewhat of a niche for me.
Shooting holes in your dumbass arguments has been a bonanza for me.
5/3/2013 2:30 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
IIRC, there was no test for a marriage license.   I just had to meet the requirement.
Fine, what purpose does the requirement serve?
To restrict people who fail to meet the requirements from getting a license.    Duh.
This is going nowhere, bis lite, because there is no reason to prevent gay people from marrying.
Well, if you throw out the fact that they fail to meet the requirements to get a marriage license then you're right.
Yet the requirement serves no purpose.
Sez you.  Some would say it prevents SS couples from marriage thus serving a very important purpose. 
5/3/2013 2:32 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
But, out of curiousity, did you suddenly discover this was going nowhere on page 132?

That seems to make you a bit slow. 
Highlighting your stupidity has become somewhat of a niche for me.
Shooting holes in your dumbass arguments has been a bonanza for me.
Only if bonanza = never in your dictionary, bis.
5/3/2013 2:33 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
IIRC, there was no test for a marriage license.   I just had to meet the requirement.
Fine, what purpose does the requirement serve?
To restrict people who fail to meet the requirements from getting a license.    Duh.
This is going nowhere, bis lite, because there is no reason to prevent gay people from marrying.
Well, if you throw out the fact that they fail to meet the requirements to get a marriage license then you're right.
Yet the requirement serves no purpose.
Sez you.  Some would say it prevents SS couples from marriage thus serving a very important purpose. 
And that purpose is...?

(See where this always goes, dummy?)
5/3/2013 2:36 PM
Since I'm in a giving mood, I'll tell you why this thread has been a massive FAIL for you.

You can't believe that anyone could have reason to oppose SSM.   So you fail to consider, for even a moment, anything anyone says that disagrees with your viewpoint.    If you can't imagine the possibility of being wrong, you cannot effectively argue your point.     That's why you repeat yourself and dismiss everyone as "stupid".    You are, in a word, "close-minded". 

Congrats.
5/3/2013 2:37 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
IIRC, there was no test for a marriage license.   I just had to meet the requirement.
Fine, what purpose does the requirement serve?
To restrict people who fail to meet the requirements from getting a license.    Duh.
This is going nowhere, bis lite, because there is no reason to prevent gay people from marrying.
Well, if you throw out the fact that they fail to meet the requirements to get a marriage license then you're right.
Yet the requirement serves no purpose.
Sez you.  Some would say it prevents SS couples from marriage thus serving a very important purpose. 
And that purpose is...?

(See where this always goes, dummy?)
it prevents SS couples from marriage

(I do see, Mr. Repetition.  I'd call it a "circle jerk")
5/3/2013 2:44 PM
And why do we need that restriction?
5/3/2013 2:46 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Since I'm in a giving mood, I'll tell you why this thread has been a massive FAIL for you.

You can't believe that anyone could have reason to oppose SSM.   So you fail to consider, for even a moment, anything anyone says that disagrees with your viewpoint.    If you can't imagine the possibility of being wrong, you cannot effectively argue your point.     That's why you repeat yourself and dismiss everyone as "stupid".    You are, in a word, "close-minded". 

Congrats.
Nothing to do with belief. I've asked over and over again why gay marriage should be prevented. You won't answer so it seems like there is no reason to prevent it.
5/3/2013 2:49 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Since I'm in a giving mood, I'll tell you why this thread has been a massive FAIL for you.

You can't believe that anyone could have reason to oppose SSM.   So you fail to consider, for even a moment, anything anyone says that disagrees with your viewpoint.    If you can't imagine the possibility of being wrong, you cannot effectively argue your point.     That's why you repeat yourself and dismiss everyone as "stupid".    You are, in a word, "close-minded". 

Congrats.
Nothing to do with belief. I've asked over and over again why gay marriage should be prevented. You won't answer so it seems like there is no reason to prevent it.
And you've been told, over and over again, why some people oppose SSM.     Yet, oddly enough, you keep repeating the same question.

And that's why this thread is a massive FAIL for you.

Although, to be fair, you're probably accustomed to it because your "style" is the same every time. 
5/3/2013 2:52 PM
LOL

Every thread is a massive FAIL for BL.

Just remember, he enjoys getting his *** kicked in debate -  that's why he sticks around.

5/3/2013 2:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Since I'm in a giving mood, I'll tell you why this thread has been a massive FAIL for you.

You can't believe that anyone could have reason to oppose SSM.   So you fail to consider, for even a moment, anything anyone says that disagrees with your viewpoint.    If you can't imagine the possibility of being wrong, you cannot effectively argue your point.     That's why you repeat yourself and dismiss everyone as "stupid".    You are, in a word, "close-minded". 

Congrats.
Nothing to do with belief. I've asked over and over again why gay marriage should be prevented. You won't answer so it seems like there is no reason to prevent it.
And you've been told, over and over again, why some people oppose SSM.     Yet, oddly enough, you keep repeating the same question.

And that's why this thread is a massive FAIL for you.

Although, to be fair, you're probably accustomed to it because your "style" is the same every time. 
Tec has stepped forward and said that while allowing gay marriage is harmless, he doesn't want the definition of marriage to change. To me, it seems weak to prevent a group of people from getting married in order to preserve the definition of a word that has changed before.

But other than that, there haven't been any other reasons.
5/3/2013 3:00 PM
Are you sure?

5/3/2013 3:01 PM
In 133 pages, only one reason has been given to prevent SSM.

I find that impossible to believe.   I'll ask again.    Are you sure?
5/3/2013 3:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
In 133 pages, only one reason has been given to prevent SSM.

I find that impossible to believe.   I'll ask again.    Are you sure?
Maybe I missed something. Why don't you tell me the reasons that gay marriage should be prevented.

A lot of those 133 pgs were wasted arguing with bis about whether or not sexuality was a choice.
5/3/2013 3:10 PM
Yeah, you missed several somethings.   You can re-read the thread or I'll just go back to this:

You can't believe that anyone could have reason to oppose SSM.   So you fail to consider bother to read, for even a moment, anything anyone says that disagrees with your viewpoint.    If you can't imagine the possibility of being wrong, you cannot effectively argue your point.     That's why you repeat yourself and dismiss everyone as "stupid".    You are, in a word, "close-minded". 

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.