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.
Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
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?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.
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?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.
You think civil rights are only based on race?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?
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.
LOL! So you're struggling with race not being a gender?
What if one loves their goat? Or their Boat? Or their Mother... Or the twins down the street?
Do you feel that Loving, in effect set aside any means for any sense of public standard?
I mean, standards exist for no other purpose than exclusion of behavior which is unsuitable for whatever entity is at issue, relevant to the standard. You clearly feel that discrimination is wrong, thus the setting of standards, given their intrinsic trait of being about nothing EXCEPT discrimination... are therefore wrong.
Explain how standards can exist, using the would-be reasoning you've offered to this point... .
Except that's just it. All of the recent cases, without exception, used Loving v Virginia as precedent, and ruled that the same is, in fact, true of gender.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?
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.
LOL! So you're struggling with race not being a gender?
What if one loves their goat? Or their Boat? Or their Mother... Or the twins down the street?
Do you feel that Loving, in effect set aside any means for any sense of public standard?
I mean, standards exist for no other purpose than exclusion of behavior which is unsuitable for whatever entity is at issue, relevant to the standard. You clearly feel that discrimination is wrong, thus the setting of standards, given their intrinsic trait of being about nothing EXCEPT discrimination... are therefore wrong.
Explain how standards can exist, using the would-be reasoning you've offered to this point... .
Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
Aren't you running away from Toro?Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.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.
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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.
Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.
If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.
You think civil rights are only based on race?
Aren't you running away from Toro?Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.
Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.
If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.
So....let me ask it of you then. Do you think civil rights are only based on race?You think civil rights are only based on race?
Golly, if only there was ANYTHING in the record of this discussion, written directly above for all to read, which would have provided ANY reasonable means for such an inference.
MAN! Would THAT have been a GREAT QUESTION!
You seem to be rather fragile.Aren't you running away from Toro?Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.
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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.
Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.
If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.
Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.
Except that's just it. All of the recent cases, without exception, used Loving v Virginia as precedent, and ruled that the same is, in fact, true of gender.
me in the post to which you are responding said:"Explain how standards can exist, using the would-be reasoning you've offered to this point... ."
Except that's just it. All of the recent cases, without exception, used Loving v Virginia as precedent, and ruled that the same is, in fact, true of gender.LOL! So you're struggling with race not being a gender?
What if one loves their goat? Or their Boat? Or their Mother... Or the twins down the street?
Do you feel that Loving, in effect set aside any means for any sense of public standard?
I mean, standards exist for no other purpose than exclusion of behavior which is unsuitable for whatever entity is at issue, relevant to the standard. You clearly feel that discrimination is wrong, thus the setting of standards, given their intrinsic trait of being about nothing EXCEPT discrimination... are therefore wrong.
Explain how standards can exist, using the would-be reasoning you've offered to this point... .
[/QUOTE]Now, instead of trotting out some irrational drivel which has NO KINSHIP with the point to which you're responding... answer the salient point, reposted for your convenience; ABOVE
So....let me ask it of you then. Do you think civil rights are only based on race?You think civil rights are only based on race?
Golly, if only there was ANYTHING in the record of this discussion, written directly above for all to read, which would have provided ANY reasonable means for such an inference.
MAN! Would THAT have been a GREAT QUESTION!
Then why is it so hard for you to say no, you don't?So....let me ask it of you then. Do you think civil rights are only based on race?You think civil rights are only based on race?
Golly, if only there was ANYTHING in the record of this discussion, written directly above for all to read, which would have provided ANY reasonable means for such an inference.
MAN! Would THAT have been a GREAT QUESTION!
Is there anything on my record from which you might conclude that I hold such a view? I've written some 25,000 words on this issue in the last seven hours and I happen to know that no such 'view' or evidence of such a view exists, which leads to the question, who are you here if you're not qualified to BE HERE? Meaning that the evidence indicates that you've little regard for the pursuit of the truth and instead are determined to derail the discussion... why would you be so interested in doing that? ... except for your recognizing that your ideas are being eviscerated and you're desperate to avoid further examples of such.
Other than THAT, why... ?
Aren't you running away from Toro?Actually, we can go with that. Thank you, again, for your concession. So the moralists made known their "thoughts, and feelings" about marriage, which means that their addition had not one whit of relevance to the question of same -sex marriage, as their "thoughts and feelings" are irrelevant to the definition of the word marriage.Your concession is duly noted, and accepted.
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.
Expression is: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.
I hope that helps, while somehow knowing that it will not.
Oh... that's sweet and I appreciate the flattery. But just stating that someone conceded is not a very effective argument. For it to work you must actually be able to show that your opposition has fled the field of the discussion through some means to deflect, or by pushing an unsustainable defense.
Since I have engaged, directly and without exception you're every point, you have no means to show that I've turn from any point within the numerous corpses that litter this field, known as your dead arguments.
But I appreciate your attempt to mimic my approach, it's very sweet of you.
If I went that way, I'm sure you'd make me very happy. Sadly, I am a well reasoned person whose sexuality is perfectly in step with nature's design. So I must flag you off.
Are you trolling too? I find your ignorance very amusing, but I will ignore you in a NY minute if you continue to distract this discussion with such irrelevancy.
That's just it. Standards don't exist, and shouldn't. Not "moral" standards anyway. That's kind of the point. Now, I know, you're gonna get into the whole pedophile thing, now; everyone does, eventually. Here is the problem with that. "Age of Consent" laws. Those are not moral standards, they are to protect me (the person who is determined to be too weak to be able to defend myself, and therefore incapable of giving consent) against you (The "Big, icky grown-up" who is not allowed to attack the weak). Now, I have a host of problems with "age of consent" laws, and how they are developed, but that is an entirely different discussion. The salient point for this discussion is that it still does not conform to the "moral standard" question.Except that's just it. All of the recent cases, without exception, used Loving v Virginia as precedent, and ruled that the same is, in fact, true of gender.
Ok, let's give it ONE MORE TRY...
me in the post to which you are responding said:"Explain how standards can exist, using the would-be reasoning you've offered to this point... ."
Now, instead of trotting out some irrational drivel which has NO KINSHIP with the point to which you're responding... answer the salient point, reposted for your convenience; ABOVE
EDIT: And there ya have it folks, it's been well over a half hour and the member is still here, so they're clearly unable to find a way out of this.
But at the end of the day, evil rejects anything that serves to promote the principles of nature that sustain a viable human existence. Standards provide for a viable, sustainable human existence. Therefore evil will attack ALL STANDARDS!
Now ask yourselves, without the means to hold to standards, what are the chances for survival of the United States?
(Those of you that came up with something that looks like THIS: -0- win! Congrats.)
So there's no chance that the Left will speak to that question... now write it down and ask it ... over and over and over again!
