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.
Defined by society hundreds of years ago... Do you have quotes by me that indicate that I'm a bigot, or are you talking out of your ass again?
Your disdain for marriage equality makes you a bigot.
Society? What was "kosher", in society, in the past, does not define society today. Things change. People change. Try to come into the 21st century.
I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot
Your disdain for marriage equality makes you a bigot.
Society? What was "kosher", in society, in the past, does not define society today. Things change. People change. Try to come into the 21st century.
I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot
You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
So the op shifted from gay right to what blacks name their kids. Lol
That's why I love reading the first and last post only.
White people name their kids weird names too identifying them, like Apple, or River.
As for gay marriage. I don't care about it. If gays want to get married keep trying to get it made legal. I'm not gay.
And yet, by that logic denying such a right to the related individuals that want to marry is also a violation of their rights.No, but last I checked couples don't have rights. As individuals, however, you both would have the same right as your straight friends regarding whom you can marry.
Right...and anti miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. Tried and failed. We don't have the right to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult partner of our choice. You do. We don't have the same rights.
Bullshit. Well, at least your source is bullshit. You fail to mention demographics in welfare recipients.Over-represented?
Update: Welfare Recipients?.Which Race Gets More Benefits? | The ObamaCrat.Com?
And AA doesn't discriminate against "qualified" white males. It discriminates against white males who are not as qualified as minority males, and naturally, because of "white privilege", they feel "rained upon".
If it is not in the enumerated powers of the federal government then it is not within the purview of the federal government.
Isn't that clear?
If the Act comes before the Supreme Court, that would be my position. If it doesn't, I have no position.
OK?
So let me get this straight. Marriage is beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. The federal government therefore exceeded it's enumerated powers in section 3 of DOMA by refusing to recognize for federal purposes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law which it had done for over 200 years.
This law exceeds the enumerated powers (which you appear to have made a big deal about) - but will not call for Congress to repeal this law? You are fine letting it sit on the books with no call for Congress to repeal it's own law.
********************
BTW - Section 3 has come before the courts and been found unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
>>>>
Didn't I make my position clear?
Defined by society hundreds of years ago... Do you have quotes by me that indicate that I'm a bigot, or are you talking out of your ass again?
Your disdain for marriage equality makes you a bigot.
Society? What was "kosher", in society, in the past, does not define society today. Things change. People change. Try to come into the 21st century.
I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
We saw it with blacks and hispanics and women and disabled. They say they want equal rights but it's just the opposite. They want special treatment in things like jobs and college scholarships. The perverts are playing the same game - take from the normals and give to me.
Point 1, Most of the prejudice remaining is fueled by resentment. It's not bad enough that blacks are so over represented on the welfare rolls, since AA, qualified white males have lost out in employment and college admissions.
Point 2. Maybe they don't get call backs because no white man knows how to pronounce Laquishatanyatoma.
In my experience, most blacks with "black sounding names" were raised by parents that don't want to be identified as Americans, but as African Americans. Any person I hire needs to be able to interact with my clients. If they were raised with a resentment against "white society", I really don't need them representing my firm.
NOTHING racist in any of that and I agree.
And you will not find anyone on this board more pro gay rights as me.
My question for affirmative actions is, as I supported it when it passed, is when DOES IT END? Who determines when things are "equal" and the "catching up" has been accomplished?
Government?
Affirmative Action was accomplished and needs to end yesterday.
White males have always had "affirmative action".
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
I have no problem with civil unions whatsoever. My problem is with the constant redefinition of words.
Take "racism" for example. A racist used to be a guy in a white robe and a pointy hat that considered one race superior to another. Today, the left is seeking to change that to anyone who disagrees with the President.
The truth of the matter is "why" you disagree with the President. Is it for policy and politics or, is it because he is "black"? As much as you'd like to deny it, I believe the latter is true.
I hold no disdain for equality, but I have respect for tradition and the meaning of words. I AM in the 21st century, poet. The dictionary definition of "marriage" is still the legal and spiritual union of one adult man and one adult woman.
You would like to scrap that definition. Perhaps you would like to change it to a union of 2 or more mammals with no restrictions on species, age, sex or the number of participants. Not me. Words have meanings sir. THAT doesn't make me a bigot
You couldn't possibly have respect for equality, which is the whole point. Obviously, the definition in the dictionary is "outdated", and it will be modified. Society, not I, is rapidly "scrapping" that definition. And typically, you want to stretch the definition to include animals, polygamy, and pedophilia. No one is suggesting that. But that doesn't stop you, does it? Yes....it most certainly makes you a bigot.
Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.
So let me get this straight. Marriage is beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. The federal government therefore exceeded it's enumerated powers in section 3 of DOMA by refusing to recognize for federal purposes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law which it had done for over 200 years.
This law exceeds the enumerated powers (which you appear to have made a big deal about) - but will not call for Congress to repeal this law? You are fine letting it sit on the books with no call for Congress to repeal it's own law.
********************
BTW - Section 3 has come before the courts and been found unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
>>>>
Didn't I make my position clear?
Not in the least. You made a statement that Civil Marriage was beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. I asked if you felt DOMA should be repealed because it (section 3) is federal usurpation of State powers to define Civil Marriage and then have it recognized the same as it did for over 200 years.
You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the question on whether Congress should not have passed DOMA (section 3) and even if it had, whether it should have repealed it as being beyond the scope of their enumerated powers.
You have not addressed the question as framed in terms of YOUR scope of enumerated powers, instead you have attempted to deflect it to a courts issue.
>>>>
Didn't I make my position clear?
Not in the least. You made a statement that Civil Marriage was beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. I asked if you felt DOMA should be repealed because it (section 3) is federal usurpation of State powers to define Civil Marriage and then have it recognized the same as it did for over 200 years.
You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the question on whether Congress should not have passed DOMA (section 3) and even if it had, whether it should have repealed it as being beyond the scope of their enumerated powers.
You have not addressed the question as framed in terms of YOUR scope of enumerated powers, instead you have attempted to deflect it to a courts issue.
>>>>
It is a court issue.
Whats a "black sounding" name though?
something like "High_Gravity"..... Oh come on guy! L'quisha, Kwhame,....
We all succumb to stereotypes to a certain extent. If I'm hiring someone to represent me to my customers, I want a qualified person I feel will respect and interact well with a wide array of personalities.
My impression, right or wrong is that parents that give their child a pseudo-ethnic name do so for reasons of racial identity and there is a very good chance that their child will self identify as African American rather than just plain American.
I really don't want to concern myself with the race of the person I hire and I don't want him or her concerned with it either.
I might have a stack of resumes on my desk and have a limited amount of time to see candidates. I'll read resumes, looking for qualifications, experience and outside interests. My perceptions are the only ones that matter. The choice is mine, and if I have 2 identically qualified applicants, Alan West will be getting the interview over Kwame Kilpatrick.
Sometimes a name can be decieving though, if my mom and dad name me something crazy its not my choice you know.
Not in the least. You made a statement that Civil Marriage was beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. I asked if you felt DOMA should be repealed because it (section 3) is federal usurpation of State powers to define Civil Marriage and then have it recognized the same as it did for over 200 years.
You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the question on whether Congress should not have passed DOMA (section 3) and even if it had, whether it should have repealed it as being beyond the scope of their enumerated powers.
You have not addressed the question as framed in terms of YOUR scope of enumerated powers, instead you have attempted to deflect it to a courts issue.
>>>>
It is a court issue.
So you are fine with Congress exceeding their enumerated powers to pass DOMA in the first place and instead of them repealing it themselves, nah - take it to the courts.
That doesn't sound consistent with your previous post where you specifically point out that Civil Marriage is beyond the enumerated powers of Congress.
>>>>
It is a court issue.
So you are fine with Congress exceeding their enumerated powers to pass DOMA in the first place and instead of them repealing it themselves, nah - take it to the courts.
That doesn't sound consistent with your previous post where you specifically point out that Civil Marriage is beyond the enumerated powers of Congress.
>>>>
"Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8?
A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly 40 states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Such an outcome probably would trigger a political campaign in California to repeal Proposition 8 through a ballot measure and could give impetus to similar voter or legislative efforts in other states."
My Way News - Wide range of potential outcomes on gay marriage
