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.
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
So what other laws should we have in place to ensure that people only do things that nature intended?
Would you ground all airplanes since nature didn't give us wings, without wings we shouldn't fly since that is what nature intended?
Does this only apply to the bedroom? Would you make oral and anal sex illegal again - since that wasn't what nature intended?
>>>>>
Wrong answer, it's totally relevant. We discriminate against immoral behavior all the time, we have law books full of examples. What you folks refuse to admit is that gays had the exact same rights as their genetic equivalents before the supremes invented them a new one.
Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".
Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".
Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".
That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.
I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.
It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..
And who could Asians and American indians marry?
From Wiki:
All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
That would have been a false argument, because they weren't treated the same as Asians or American indians, were they? I think Loving was a proper decision, unlike this last one.
It's false argument now.
To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.
A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.
Rights aren't granted by popular vote.
Exactly.
I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.
>>>>
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Yes, we do pass laws against "immoral behavior". We passed laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites because it was "immoral". We passed laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol because drinking is "immoral".
Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".
Before "the supremes" ruled on Loving v Virginia, blacks had the same rights as their "generic equivalents".
That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.
I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.
It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..
And who could Asians and American indians marry?
From Wiki:
All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
"but often also", meaning not always, what did the VA law say?
It's false argument now.
To the Commonwealth of Virginia it was a perfectly logical argument at the time.
A time when 80% of the population was against blacks being able to marry whites. The difference is that now only 40% are against same-sex civil marriage.
Rights aren't granted by popular vote.
Exactly.
I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.
>>>>
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
Rights aren't granted by popular vote.
Exactly.
I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.
>>>>
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there.Exactly.
I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.
>>>>
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Exactly.
I hope to see you remind those who cite the states voting to take away rights of equal treatment and due process from same sex couples when they voted to ban Civil Marriage and Civil Unions for same-sex couples in the early 2000's.
>>>>
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
That's a lie, genetically men are men and women are women, race has no bearing on that genetic fact.
I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.
It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..
And who could Asians and American indians marry?
From Wiki:
All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
"but often also", meaning not always, what did the VA law say?
All non whites:
Anti Miscegenation Laws in the United States
Want to keep being proven wrong?
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there."same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
I did not lie. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That was considered "equal" until Loving.
It was also considered immortal to contemplate blacks marrying whites..
And who could Asians and American indians marry?
From Wiki:
All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
"but often also", meaning not always, what did the VA law say?
All non whites:
Anti Miscegenation Laws in the United States
Want to keep being proven wrong?
I asked a simple question, you didn't post a link the first time in post 399. The only consistency I see in the link was the inconsistency in the laws of the various States, even those overturned by Loving.
"same-sex couples", the ultimate oxymoron, since two of the same sex, can't couple as nature intended.
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Yes, your arguments are indeed simple...much like these.
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
and these:
Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion.and these:
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."
"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." (Said by a Chief Justice)
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there.Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Tell that to the mate of a black widow spider, which is promptly killed, in most cases.
And who could Asians and American indians marry?
From Wiki:
All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.
"but often also", meaning not always, what did the VA law say?
All non whites:
Anti Miscegenation Laws in the United States
Want to keep being proven wrong?
I asked a simple question, you didn't post a link the first time in post 399. The only consistency I see in the link was the inconsistency in the laws of the various States, even those overturned by Loving.
Yes...much like the inconsistency in the laws of the various states before they were overturned by Obergefell
Bigots thought interracial marriage was against nature too...
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Yes, your arguments are indeed simple...much like these.
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
and these:
Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion.and these:
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."
"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." (Said by a Chief Justice)
Once again that crap has nothing to do with my argument, you keep deflecting back to this because you can't break my argument that men and women are designed by nature to couple. In fact it's necessary to the continuing of the species.
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there.Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Tell that to the mate of a black widow spider, which is promptly killed, in most cases.
But, but, but that's "natural", right?
Why do you keep posting this crap, I've already said Loving was the correct decision, move on. There is no parallel between ss marriage and interracial marriage, except in your imagination.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Yes, your arguments are indeed simple...much like these.
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
and these:
Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion.and these:
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."
"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." (Said by a Chief Justice)
Once again that crap has nothing to do with my argument, you keep deflecting back to this because you can't break my argument that men and women are designed by nature to couple. In fact it's necessary to the continuing of the species.
It has everything to do with your argument. It IS your argument, only with a different target. Same bigots, different decade.
And some of us are naturally (or by design) made to not continue the species...and yet we still do. I've "continued the species" five times.
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there.I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Tell that to the mate of a black widow spider, which is promptly killed, in most cases.
But, but, but that's "natural", right?
It is for them.
I keep posting the parallels and you keep ignoring them because they make you uncomfortable. Bigots then played the "unnatural" card just like bigots today do. The only thing that has changed is the target, the bigots remain the same, right down to their "unnatural" arguments.
Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Yes, your arguments are indeed simple...much like these.
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
and these:
Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion.and these:
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."
"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."
"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." (Said by a Chief Justice)
Once again that crap has nothing to do with my argument, you keep deflecting back to this because you can't break my argument that men and women are designed by nature to couple. In fact it's necessary to the continuing of the species.
It has everything to do with your argument. It IS your argument, only with a different target. Same bigots, different decade.
And some of us are naturally (or by design) made to not continue the species...and yet we still do. I've "continued the species" five times.
You have my condolences. Did you do it the old fashioned way?
Nature created human sex for pleasure, bonding. Reproduction catches a ride here and there.Nature created the tools for men and women to couple, not me, and not you. It's just that simple.
Tell that to the mate of a black widow spider, which is promptly killed, in most cases.
But, but, but that's "natural", right?
It is for them.
Wow...it's like you're finally catching on. For a percentage of the population, attraction to members of the same sex is natural for them. This obviously occurs "naturally" or if you believe that sort of thing, by design. Duh!
