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.
I am quite on point . My "tangent" as you call it has already won in courts of law. Read the majority opinions in Windsor and Obergefell. There are others as well .I bet that you have not read any of them. Anyway, that you for admitting that you are motivated by bigotry by saying that my assessment of you "may be true" although you are to much of a coward to say it directly.What I am seeing that you're interpretation of the infancy doctrine is made up bullshit and that you are ignoring and cannot mount a rebuttal to the factual and logical argument that I have made showing that NOT allowing same sex couple to marry is what harms children. Again, admit that you don't give a damn about the kids and are just using them to try to punish gays .!!
Everything you allege about my motives may (or may not) be true. However that has no bearing on contracts involving infants where a deprivation of a necessity to them (for life) has occurred in a contract in question. Your tangent will not protect your case in a court of law. Do take steps to stay on point.
What I am seeing that you're interpretation of the infancy doctrine is made up bullshit and that you are ignoring and cannot mount a rebuttal to the factual and logical argument that I have made showing that NOT allowing same sex couple to marry is what harms children. Again, admit that you don't give a damn about the kids and are just using them to try to punish gays .!!
Everything you allege about my motives may (or may not) be true. However that has no bearing on contracts involving infants where a deprivation of a necessity to them (for life) has occurred in a contract in question. Your tangent will not protect your case in a court of law. Do take steps to stay on point.
I am quite on point . My "tangent" as you call it has already won in courts of law. Read the majority opinions in Windsor and Obergefell. There are others as well .I bet that you have not read any of them. Anyway, that you for admitting that you are motivated by bigotry by saying that my assessment of you "may be true" although you are to much of a coward to say it directly.
won't save you on the Infancy Doctrine debate.
Texas and other states that pass those laws are backward shit holes and bastions of bigotry and ignorance and the existence of those laws proves nothing else. You are STILL not dealing with the facts and logic that I presented that clearly shows how discrimination against gay parents harms children. You are either totally blinded by your bigotry or you are incredibly dishonest. You admit no bigotry but don't deny it either. Grow a spine!!What I am seeing that you're interpretation of the infancy doctrine is made up bullshit and that you are ignoring and cannot mount a rebuttal to the factual and logical argument that I have made showing that NOT allowing same sex couple to marry is what harms children. Again, admit that you don't give a damn about the kids and are just using them to try to punish gays .!!
Everything you allege about my motives may (or may not) be true. However that has no bearing on contracts involving infants where a deprivation of a necessity to them (for life) has occurred in a contract in question. Your tangent will not protect your case in a court of law. Do take steps to stay on point.I am quite on point . My "tangent" as you call it has already won in courts of law. Read the majority opinions in Windsor and Obergefell. There are others as well .I bet that you have not read any of them. Anyway, that you for admitting that you are motivated by bigotry by saying that my assessment of you "may be true" although you are to much of a coward to say it directly.
I admitted no bigotry. I simply pointed out that your tangent on using violin strings
I am unaware of how your cult has "won in courts of law" on the question of can a contract contain terms that legally deprive a child of either a mother of father for life. Link? At present, Texas and other states have on the books standing active applicable law that says certain adoption institutions don't have to adopt children out to "gay married" couples. ie: they can be denied solely on the fact that they are a gay couple and for no other reason necessary. I think the Infancy Doctrine's protections has something to do with that. Don't you?
Who are you addressing and about what. Try to learn how to use the reply featureHow much longer do you think that will stand?
You folks are putting WAY to much energy into this
Yes I can , we are getting there !Can you imagine a future where gay is as accepted as hetero and the races have all blended into one?
Who the hell knows or cares. ? I doubt that there even is a God.Why did God even make different genders and races????
Australia Has Voted YES To Same-Sex Marriage In A Landmark National Survey
what a great victory for my team!
You are too damned obtuse for words!! I pointed out that children in the care of gay people already do not have either a mother or a father, and in some cases had neither until being adopted, and in all cases are not going to have both by banning same sex marriage. You are blinded by you bigotry, or maybe it is just stupidity. I suspect a combination of both..I am unaware of how your cult has "won in courts of law" on the question of can a contract contain terms that legally deprive a child of either a mother of father for life.
Australia Has Voted YES To Same-Sex Marriage In A Landmark National Survey
what a great victory for my team!
That's awesome! He's right, it is pornography and has no business being seen in a pubic venue such as a wall facing the street.So, gay "marriage" wins in Australia.
Lefties paint a huge mural of two blokes wanking each other in a lefty suburb.
Arabs come and paint over it in disgust.
The lefties don't know how to deal with their friends "the oppressed minority"
Watch here
Don't see it at all. But the gay porn on the wall in Aussieland had to go.
BREAKING!Australia Has Voted YES To Same-Sex Marriage In A Landmark National Survey
what a great victory for my team!
They are the same reasons why same sex marriage is recognized.The reasons why a State would recognize non-traditional "marriages" are many and various. They could include taxation, inheritance, health insurance considerations, real estate titles, and so on
Yes political pressure played a role, but there is much more to it than that. You can not say that insufficient thought went into the decision. It has been debated for decades at all levels of government and in many forums. Some states had same sex marriage for many years at the time of Obergefell. That social and political pressure forced the courts to take a hard look at the constitutionality of banning same sex marriage. Social norms change and evolve and it is proper to expect that the law will evolve with it.the States are recognizing gay "marriages" mostly due to political pressure, and without giving it sufficient thought. Because the same considerations that impel recognizing gay marriages could be understood to impel recognizing polygamy, incest (between or among adults), or even inter-species "marriage." "I love my Horse," and all that.
