Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

Because his brain is saying, "I don't know what to say."

Adultery is not a crime. Lying is in itself not a crime. Murder is a crime in many places that do not adhere, nor ever adhered to Christian ideology. Theft is a crime in almost all places.

try again.


Do you want to try that again?

Adultery, in many states, is still a crime - USATODAY.com

yes, I know there are some 200 year old laws that are not at all enforced, ANYWHERE. Please rewind to the start of your argument, and try something better. You of course skipped the rest, for which you have NO reply.
 
Nope, only you. And since when do you argue Christian beliefs, when you are in fact a satanist.

Actually, several states, DC, and the US military disagree with you.

It's changing, and that is OK.
the U.S. military says it's ok to fuck animals.
Really that's a fact? care to share those facts that you base that on? if you can't support what you say is a fact that makes you a god damn liar.
 
Adultery is not a crime. Lying is in itself not a crime. Murder is a crime in many places that do not adhere, nor ever adhered to Christian ideology. Theft is a crime in almost all places.

try again.


Do you want to try that again?

Adultery, in many states, is still a crime - USATODAY.com

yes, I know there are some 200 year old laws that are not at all enforced, ANYWHERE. (here's a hint about laws. Unconstitutional ones then to get shit on and thown out.) Please rewind to the start of your argument, and try something better. You of course skipped the rest, for which you have NO reply.

Dumb ass do you comprehend what based on means? I said our laws are based on laws from the bible. Can you comprehend that?
 
You are defining marriage for only the way you see it, Qball, but the legal sanctioning of that view is falling by the wayside. You are unable and will continue to be unable to stop it from redefining as universal marriage.

But . . . I make you this promise. That if anyone tries to make you marry someone of your own sex, I your superhero will fly to your rescue and defeat the evildoers.

:rolleyes:

This...isn't really a response to what I said, but okay. I mean, it's a little silly to say it's just the way I see it when my bottom line is marriage is and should remain the unique union of a man and a woman, which is what most people who have weighed in the issue have concluded as well.

"We have always discriminated" is not a rational or legally sustainable argument. It is the weakest argument in the bigot handbook.

Argumentum ad populum is also a logical fallacy. The majority of people once concluded slavery was just fine, too.


.
 
Last edited:
According to what objective and legally recognized authority?

If you believe it’s ‘wrong’ then don’t engage in same-sex marriage; otherwise you’re in no position to dictate to others.

I don't think the people I pay taxes to should be ruling on this
Gay have the same rights everybody else does.
Should gay family members be allowed to marry each other?

Why not let the courts decide?

Can you prove any detrimental impact on society if family members are allowed to marry? There are none with gays marrying

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.
 
I don't think the people I pay taxes to should be ruling on this
Gay have the same rights everybody else does.
Should gay family members be allowed to marry each other?

Why not let the courts decide?

Can you prove any detrimental impact on society if family members are allowed to marry? There are none with gays marrying

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?
 
Faux freak families are those of the extremist right wing satanists on the Board wanting to stop gay marriage. How stupid.
 
After stripping away all the logical fallacies, smoke screens, red herrings, and ignorance of the US Constitution, all that are left are two arguments:

1. "I hate fags".

2. "God hates fags".

.
 
Why not let the courts decide?

Can you prove any detrimental impact on society if family members are allowed to marry? There are none with gays marrying

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?
Should family members that happen to be gay be allowed to marry each other?
 
Abnormal means minority interest not perversion.

Use terms correctly, please.
 
I don't think the people I pay taxes to should be ruling on this
Gay have the same rights everybody else does.
Should gay family members be allowed to marry each other?

Why not let the courts decide?

Can you prove any detrimental impact on society if family members are allowed to marry? There are none with gays marrying

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

And how would you define ‘genuine families’ in a Constitutional manner?


(hint: you can’t…)
 
Why not let the courts decide?

Can you prove any detrimental impact on society if family members are allowed to marry? There are none with gays marrying

Of course there is a detrimental impact from allowing gays to marry> For one thing, that would divert precious resources from genuine families that are propagating the species to faux freak families that propagate nothing but dysfunction.

How do married gays pull resources from other couples?

If gay couples are getting tangible government benefits from the government, they are obviously reducing the share available for other purposes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if money goes to Richard Roe, then there is less money available to go to Jane Doe.
 

Forum List

Back
Top