Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.
False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.
Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
Toro! Are you picking that this poor boy?The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.
False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.
Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
You're an annoying little person aren't you?
One more uninvited attempt to troll and I report you to whoever is moderating this thread. If that doesn't work... I will place you on ignore and you can annoy those who feel as you feel. Either way, I win.
See how that works?
I do smoke strong stuff.Two thirds of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention OR two thirds of both Houses of Congress can create an amendment.............THEN 3/4ths of the states must approve it thru state votes.Glad somebody knows math.
BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.
Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.
Good luck on that....if you think there is any chance of a Constitutional Amendment making civil gay marriage illegal, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff.
Two thirds of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention OR two thirds of both Houses of Congress can create an amendment.............THEN 3/4ths of the states must approve it thru state votes.Glad somebody knows math.
BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.
Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.
Good luck on that....if you think there is any chance of a Constitutional Amendment making civil gay marriage illegal, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff.
Actually that's not what atheism is; you are describing agnositcism, an entirely different theological position.
Wrong...
You're joking right?!?! You seriously do not know the different between atheism, and agnosticism? Okay. It is not my job to educate the theologically challenged. Tell you what. Come talk to me when you have a basic understanding of theology beyond your preacher's sermons, and we'll talk.Much the same for the A-gnostic, which were the original Christian fundies, but had little time for other or as they considered them, lessor 'sects' of Christianity. And as with the apolitical, and the asexual... they simply have no concern for the subject.
I do smoke strong stuff.Two thirds of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention OR two thirds of both Houses of Congress can create an amendment.............THEN 3/4ths of the states must approve it thru state votes.Glad somebody knows math.
BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.
Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.
Good luck on that....if you think there is any chance of a Constitutional Amendment making civil gay marriage illegal, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff.
Sword of Jah, my own creation.
Anything can happen by the way.
There could be a serious backlash to the whole gay marriage thing, and an amendment could happen.
Stanger things have happened.
Personally I don't give a flying fuck what gays do with themselves, or what any consenting adults do with themselves, but, to call a gay union a marriage is in my not so humble opinion not much different from calling a cat a dog.
Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.Yes, simple, as in silly, stupid, shallow, and illiterate. marriage carried no such verbiage until 1996, when same-sex couples were discovered getting married, and Right-Wing moralists started shitting themselves, and rushed to their state capitols to change the definitions in the laws. Now that the courts have all been ruling that those changes were neither legal, nor valid, same-sex marriages are once again becoming legally accepted much to the chagrin of the Right-Wing moralists. Well, sucks to be you.There is no such thing as "Marriage Equality". Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. There is no potential for a contest of any other form of marriage as no other form of marriage is possible, because MARRIAGE MEANS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!
Simple stuff. And it doesn't get complex, just because you people can't understand it.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. I well recall the debates of the 1970s and 80s wherein the opposition to the acceptance of homosexuals (Shutting down the sodomy laws) were concerned with the Homosexuals asking to be married if such laws were dropped and the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality REELING IN DISGUST AT THE TEMERITY OF THE OPPOSITION TO EVEN SUGGEST SUCH! "No homosexual would ever considering trying to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That goes without saying...' CNN Crossfire... Early 80s.
Prior to that, no one really considered the world devolving to the point where such would need to be openly and specifically defined. That doesn't mean that it was not defined that way before evil advanced to the point where it needed to be EXPRESSED!
The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.
False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.
Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
You're an annoying little person aren't you?
One more uninvited attempt to troll and I report you to whoever is moderating this thread. If that doesn't work... I will place you on ignore and you can annoy those who feel as you feel. Either way, I win.
See how that works?
You confuse ridicule with concession, Sitr.
Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism.That's not my definition of Atheism; that comes from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a degree of Skeptical Theism. You can read more about that at the link, if you'd like to actually educate yourself. Somehow, I doubt you will. After all, the moralistic fanatical never want to have their views challenged; they prefer to live with the delusion of the superiority of their positions.
Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.Yes, simple, as in silly, stupid, shallow, and illiterate. marriage carried no such verbiage until 1996, when same-sex couples were discovered getting married, and Right-Wing moralists started shitting themselves, and rushed to their state capitols to change the definitions in the laws. Now that the courts have all been ruling that those changes were neither legal, nor valid, same-sex marriages are once again becoming legally accepted much to the chagrin of the Right-Wing moralists. Well, sucks to be you.There is no such thing as "Marriage Equality". Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. There is no potential for a contest of any other form of marriage as no other form of marriage is possible, because MARRIAGE MEANS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!
Simple stuff. And it doesn't get complex, just because you people can't understand it.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. I well recall the debates of the 1970s and 80s wherein the opposition to the acceptance of homosexuals (Shutting down the sodomy laws) were concerned with the Homosexuals asking to be married if such laws were dropped and the advocacy of the normalization of sexual abnormality REELING IN DISGUST AT THE TEMERITY OF THE OPPOSITION TO EVEN SUGGEST SUCH! "No homosexual would ever considering trying to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That goes without saying...' CNN Crossfire... Early 80s.
Prior to that, no one really considered the world devolving to the point where such would need to be openly and specifically defined. That doesn't mean that it was not defined that way before evil advanced to the point where it needed to be EXPRESSED!
Expression is definition. Hence by adding the expression, you altered the definition. Prior to the meddling by the moralists marriage was not so defined by law. How moralists "always defined" the term is of no relevance.
Try 38.Two thirds of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention OR two thirds of both Houses of Congress can create an amendment.............THEN 3/4ths of the states must approve it thru state votes.Glad somebody knows math.
BTW, that is ONE method of amending the Consititution.
Three-quarters of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention, and the POTUS, SCOTUS and COTUS can suck eggs.
Good luck on that....if you think there is any chance of a Constitutional Amendment making civil gay marriage illegal, you are smoking some seriously strong stuff.
3/4s of the states?
What is 3/4s of 50? Pretty close to 31 I bet...
Now 31 states? That seems fairly familiar and seems to be something which would not go well for those who may have recently orchestrated a desperate attempt to circumvent their desire to define marriage as nature has defined it.
Which if that is true... LOL! Would mean that THAT issue is one of the very few things that anyone could offer up that had a chance in hell of getting the assent of 3/4s of the states....
Now HOW COOL IS THAT?
Of course it does, "deviance" is nothing more than a matter of statistical difference from the average, and has no legal connotation. As such those "deviants" are still United States citizens, and are still afforded all of the rights and priviledged guaranteed by the 14th amendment.No... it doesn't. The issue was not protections OF the deviant,
False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.
Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
You're an annoying little person aren't you?
One more uninvited attempt to troll and I report you to whoever is moderating this thread. If that doesn't work... I will place you on ignore and you can annoy those who feel as you feel. Either way, I win.
See how that works?
Surely, you don't want to get the mods involved, do you PI?
I, for one, am happy to have you back. We need more of the old crew here.
Actually, that is not how the Courts ruled on marriage in Loving v Virginia. According to the ruling marriage is about the right to marry whom you choose, and love. it cannot be restricted by others, based on their moral approval.except the 18th made drinking illegal for all. It didn't try to define some "special class" of citizen for whom drinking was magically okay. Not exactly the same as what you're trying to suggest. That's kinda why DOMA got shot down by the Courts - it didn't conform to the 14th. So, in order to pass a DOMA style Constitutional amendment, you would first have to pass an amendment that allows you to circumvent the 14th, based on a person's sexual preference.You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?
Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.
Commander.
See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.
Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.
Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
Please show where at ANY point I supported a state law against gay marriage, I'm firmly opposed to such. I merely argue from a technical standpoint that a Constitutional Amendment certainly COULD make gay marriage illegal.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now , we KNOW that it wouldn't have to be repealed , despite your claims, to make way for an Amendment making gay marriage illegal, because it was not repealed to make DRINKING illegal, when the 18th was passed. So that little argument is DENIED.
Just as Marriage standards APPLY TO ALL... Any man can marry ANY woman he can talk into it. Be they sexual deviant or any other kind of deviant.
Nice!
except the 18th made drinking illegal for all. It didn't try to define some "special class" of citizen for whom drinking was magically okay. Not exactly the same as what you're trying to suggest. That's kinda why DOMA got shot down by the Courts - it didn't conform to the 14th. So, in order to pass a DOMA style Constitutional amendment, you would first have to pass an amendment that allows you to circumvent the 14th, based on a person's sexual preference.You're absolutely right. However, sans a Constitutional amendment to the constitution of the UNITED STATES, guess how much weight any state law - even a state Constitutional amendment - carries in relation to rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution?It's happening all over, and there's nothing you can do about it. How helpless does that make you feel right now?A woman cannot marry a woman.
You see scamp, marriage is defined, by the natural design of the species, as the joining of one man and one woman.
At best what you have is a room-mate contract. While legally binding, it is in no way relevant to marriage, and this without regard to the presense by the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality, to the contrary.
Completely incorrect. An amendment to the COTUS could be passed.
Commander.
See that is the problem with your little "will of the people: argument. You want to make state laws that transgress the United States Constitution, without, first, amending the United States Constitution to allow for the suspension of those rights.
Ya did it backwards. Go ahead, and propose that amendment. By the way, you would actually need two. Because first you would have to pass an amendment that repeals, or limits the 14th.
Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.
Please show where at ANY point I supported a state law against gay marriage, I'm firmly opposed to such. I merely argue from a technical standpoint that a Constitutional Amendment certainly COULD make gay marriage illegal.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now , we KNOW that it wouldn't have to be repealed , despite your claims, to make way for an Amendment making gay marriage illegal, because it was not repealed to make DRINKING illegal, when the 18th was passed. So that little argument is DENIED.
Nice!
I'm sure you'll get a moderator-approved tissue.Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
You're an annoying little person aren't you?
One more uninvited attempt to troll and I report you to whoever is moderating this thread. If that doesn't work... I will place you on ignore and you can annoy those who feel as you feel. Either way, I win.
See how that works?
Surely, you don't want to get the mods involved, do you PI?
I, for one, am happy to have you back. We need more of the old crew here.
Does anyone know who moderates this forum? I'd like to report a troll. (Also... how does one set a troll on ignore? {NEVER MIND I FOUND IT! Thanks anyway.. )
This is why I ridicule you. You cannot simply make up definitions to words in order to suit your own warped views, and expect to be taken seriously.You confuse ridicule with concession, Sitr.
Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism.That's not my definition of Atheism; that comes from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a degree of Skeptical Theism. You can read more about that at the link, if you'd like to actually educate yourself. Somehow, I doubt you will. After all, the moralistic fanatical never want to have their views challenged; they prefer to live with the delusion of the superiority of their positions.
A-theism expresses unconcern with theism..
There are no leftist Americans!The Christian Right seems to have claimed the high ground on this issue, and have labeled those that disagree with them as being perverted, anti-American, godless homo lovers.
False. Americans ARE THE HIGH GROUND, because Americans recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles of nature which govern human behavior. Those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality have IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES as proponents of the normalization of sexual perversions, by promoting the normalization of sexual behavior which deviates from the biological design intrinsic to human sexuality. Merely noting those otherwise incontestable facts, does not induce a slander, as you so ignorantly project.
Now, Keys. Have some warm milk, and take a nap. Everything will be alright.....
Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.
(See how easy this is folks?)
"Your concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted, sis!."
