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 pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.
As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!
Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.
How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?
There is no 'race'. We're all humans. The differences in DNA that account for appearance differences, are a insignificant to others. I can have more similarity in DNA with a Chinese guy from China, than the white guy across the street, and look completely different from the Chinese guy compared to the white guy next door.
There is no race. There is only the human race. Science has finally caught up with what the Bible has said for thousands of years. We are all one race. We started from Adam and Eve. The idea that there are different races, is more of an evolutionary idea.
Dear Androw:
You care to take up this issue with the Bone Marrow Registry?
in order to save lives of minorities: Latino, African American, Asian and Native American,
they created 4 nonprofits to educate and solicit registered donors from these four groups.
Their reason is the HLA compatibility is only 1/10 chances of finding a match for minorities (versus 9/10 for caucasians who tend to be compatible with each other at a higher rate).
With minorities, the HLA is more likely to be compatible with the same race, and even greater probability by matching people of the same region, such as Nigerians with Nigerians or Vietnamese with Vietnamese. the HLA is THAT specific.
With interracial patients, the match is almost impossible to find, but greater chance if the donor is the same two mixed races. For example, for one child who was half Indian and half Irish, there was a worldwide search to find a donor, where a compatible donation came from a newborn baby who was also half Indian and half Irish. the chances were 1/200,000 of finding a match and saving that kid's life.
Do you really want to take this up with the doctors who make the assessments and decisions on compatibility, and whether the patient has high enough chance of not rejecting the bone marrow to go through the expense of the surgical procedures?
finding a match is not only based on race, but specifically depends on national ethnicity as well, where people closer genetically are more likely to be compatible. it makes a difference between life and death.
As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!
Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.
What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.
Are you aware that not a single fucking thing you've said has had anything to do with the topic of the thread, NOR is it of any interest to anyone else? I don't believe anyone said, "Hey, could you please tell us how gross you think homosexuality is? And could you please discuss 'teaching it in schools', even though schools have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand?"
We all get that you don't like homosexuality. Please try to reciprocate by getting that WE DON'T CARE. It's irrelevant, and you're wasting everyone's time. This is not a thread about whether or not homosexuality sucks. It's a thread about whether or not people like you should be legally prevented from saying that it sucks. Just because I am willing to defend your right to say it doesn't mean I'm inviting you to do so
Looks like you've been around this forum long enough to know that not every post is dead on to the topic. Many posts simply deal with responses to other posts, whether directly on topic, not on topic at all, or on topic indirectly.
Having been posting in forums for 10 years, I don't need coaching. It so happens that my post WAS CONNECTED to a prior post which I was responding to. If you can't handle that without having a tantrum meltdown, perhaps this isn't the venue for you. Have you tried needlework ?
As for your 3 capital lettered words "WE DON"T CARE" >> Correction: YOU don't care. The others here, DO CARE, as proven by the fact that they not only have read my posts that you say they don't care about, but they've also been responding to them, and one doesn't respond to what one doesn't care about. You respond, you care. If there's really anything around here that they don't care about, it might be what YOU care, or don't care about.
PS - I shall now go back to posting MY way, whether you like it or not.
Let me tell you what I just heard: "I know I screwed up, but I'm too much of a self-absorbed punk to admit it, so instead I will just try to rationalize why it's okay for me to fuck up and waste everyone's time, and why YOU are at fault for expecting me to be a worthwhile human being."
I need no "correction". I was right the first time: no one cares that you hate homosexuals. This thread continues to not be about the squishy, icky fantasies you can't stop yourself from having about gay sex. You will continue to post about them, and gradually everyone will realize what I saw about you in your first post: you're a meaningless non-entity who will very shortly only be acknowledged by the leftists who are as lame, bigoted, and narrow-minded in their own way as you are in yours, and who gleefully see the rare existence of a latently homosexual bigot like you as proof that everyone on the right is that way.
I suggest you either get some therapy to get you over your taboo fascination with gay sex, or get some therapy to help you be comfortable with being gay. One or the other. This, however, is not the appropriate place to work out your issues.
Buh bye.
Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.
What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.
Yeah. Mine had it all wrong, apparently. They taught me all kinds of crap about the "Constitution" (whatever that is!?) and "limited government". Crazy stuff, eh?
Majority rules is all we to know nowadays. Go team!
Ahh, yes. The familiar leftist song: "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does. Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"
Here's a hint: Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.
The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court:
The purity of public morals, 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.
The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.
You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.
They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?
Loving v Virginia 1967.
EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:
Your quote is from the state court. I'm asking you to present here what the SCOTUS said.
Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.
He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??
He's a good leftist just like you, Statist. In fact, when he starts yapping about $22 an hour minimum wage, it's impossible to tell you and he apart.
The Bill is dead. Stop beating a dead horse.
Just think, a Jewish Business denying service to Christian in Tucson, the hows that would have happened.
our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.
our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.
Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.
They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?
Loving v Virginia 1967.
He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??
Yepp, got it!
Here, some bathroom reading for you, since all this is probably giving you hemmarhoids:
Loving v. Virginia | Casebriefs
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loving v. Virginia
Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.
I'll play!
"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"
our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.
Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.
Hey look, another closet queen is back with more stories about hard cocks and gysm spurting in their faces!
Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.
I'll play!
"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"
You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men.
Now get back in the closet!!!!!!
Loving v Virginia 1967.
EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:
Your quote is from the state court. I'm asking you to present here what the SCOTUS said.
They dismissed the "unnatural" argument and ruled on the constitution, the 14th Amendment to be exact.
The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court:
The purity of public morals, 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.
The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.
You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.
Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?
The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court:
The purity of public morals, 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.
The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.
You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.
Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?
