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.
It’s definitely discriminating on gender. Saying a man can only marry a woman discriminates against every man that wants to marry that man and the only basis for that discrimination is gender.That isn't discriminating on gender, it's saying there is no right for SSM, for either gender.
Race and sexuality aren't the same things. Loving was correct. Sodomy laws are stupid no matter what. Plessey was wrong, as wrong as Roe and Obergfell.
Intent matters for sentencing but not for whether or not you're guilty of infringing on others against their will.Because the person sneaking into our homes in the dead of night are doing so purposely, knowing that they are breaking laws and desiring to either rob or harm us in some way. The unborn baby does not decide to be there, he/she is created as the result of decisions his/her parents made. IOW, they're completely innocent. You do see the difference, right?
It’s definitely discriminating on gender. Saying a man can only marry a woman discriminates against every man that wants to marry that man and the only basis for that discrimination is gender.
Race and gender are the same in that they both benefit from equal protection.
Sodomy laws are stupid but guess which asshole on the Supreme Court wrote the dissent saying they’re constitutional?
In a low tax civilization that is rising there would be more of an agreement in today's world. This was pushed by elites who want total power and wealth beyond anyone's dreams. After the inevitable decline completes its descent there will be a reckoning for us all.It’s definitely discriminating on gender. Saying a man can only marry a woman discriminates against every man that wants to marry that man and the only basis for that discrimination is gender.
Race and gender are the same in that they both benefit from equal protection.
Sodomy laws are stupid but guess which asshole on the Supreme Court wrote the dissent saying they’re constitutional?
Also, let's suppose the person breaking into your home is a child themselves who doesn't understand anything about property rights and home ownership? Must you now be responsible for raising and caring for this child or can you remove them from your home?Because the person sneaking into our homes in the dead of night are doing so purposely, knowing that they are breaking laws and desiring to either rob or harm us in some way. The unborn baby does not decide to be there, he/she is created as the result of decisions his/her parents made. IOW, they're completely innocent. You do see the difference, right?
The pre-born are not guilty of anything. It is not their responsibility for being where their mother placed them. Here's reality. The mother decided to do something that produces babies quite frequently, millions of times every year. It is therefore her responsibility for placing that child in her uterus. That means the baby is invited. You would have no luck in court if you invited people over to a dinner party, then poisoned them all and tried to claim they were invading your home.Intent matters for sentencing but not for whether or not you're guilty of infringing on others against their will.
Again, the pre-born baby did not decide to be placed in the mother's uterus. That was her choice, made when she did things that normally produce such babies.Also, let's suppose the person breaking into your home is a child themselves who doesn't understand anything about property rights and home ownership? Must you now be responsible for raising and caring for this child or can you remove them from your home?
The pre-born are not guilty of anything. It is not their responsibility for being where their mother placed them. Here's reality. The mother decided to do something that produces babies quite frequently, millions of times every year. It is therefore her responsibility for placing that child in her uterus. That means the baby is invited. You would have no luck in court if you invited people over to a dinner party, then poisoned them all and tried to claim they were invading your home.
Except of course in the case of rape or birth control failing. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, that's you trying to assign blame. I'm saying simply that no human, no matter of circumstance, has a right to put their hands on anyone without their consent, let alone gestate inside them.Again, the pre-born baby did not decide to be placed in the mother's uterus. That was her choice, made when she did things that normally produce such babies.
It's not the baby's fault or responsibility that he/she is placed in the uterus, therefore, your entire argument that a baby is somehow forcing the mother to house them is false. You might as well invite some homeless people into your house, let them live there long enough to establish residency, then try to kick them out without going through the eviction process. You can't legally do it because you allowed them to live there. Face it, you're never going to make the case that a baby is forcing him/herself on anyone. It's the mothers' decisions that put him/her there. Well, maybe in the extreme partisan world you can make the case, but that's not where most people are at.Except of course in the case of rape or birth control failing. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, that's you trying to assign blame. I'm saying simply that no human, no matter of circumstance, has a right to put their hands on anyone without their consent, let alone gestate inside them.
Never said otherwise.They're all human.
I can say kill. "KILL A FETUS"!Just can't say "kill" can you?
Except I specifically brought up instances of rape and faulty birth control. Those demonstrate a desire to avoid pregnancy, not an invitation to it.It's not the baby's fault or responsibility that he/she is placed in the uterus, therefore, your entire argument that a baby is somehow forcing the mother to house them is false. You might as well invite some homeless people into your house, let them live there long enough to establish residency, then try to kick them out without going through the eviction process. You can't legally do it because you allowed them to live there.
I can say kill. "KILL A FETUS"!
Abortion is simply the appropriate medical term so seems to fit better.
I don't know the details, but even the FBI doesn't want to detain a geriatric.The FBI is completely out of control.
BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door - Could Face Year in Federal Prison | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
11 pro-life activists were arrested this month for holding a prayer vigil and singing hymns at the door of the abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Yawn....Ok. Kill a human.Kill a human?
Yawn....Ok. Kill a human.
Seems dumb to say though. If someone who had just aborted a fetus walked up to you and said they had just killed a human, you wouldn't really know exactly what they meant and would need clarification.
Don't you think using words that clearly shape the context of a comment is a good idea?
Again, the need for something to be "reality for millennia" has no legal basis. It's entirely fabricated excuse for someone like you to just say that you don't want to change anything. Nowhere has it ever been written that Equal Protections only applies to something with a historical basis. It's completely illogical.No, it doesn't. It's what has been reality for millennia. SSM is a recent construct, that if people want to vote into being is fine by me. Imposing it is abuse of the 14th amendment.
They are not the same.
His argument is with the concept substantive due process, which I have the same issues with. Method matters.
Again, the need for something to be "reality for millennia" has no legal basis. It's entirely fabricated excuse for someone like you to just say that you don't want to change anything. Nowhere has it ever been written that Equal Protections only applies to something with a historical basis. It's completely illogical.
Obergfell and Loving were decided on almost entirely the same basis. Both were decisions based on the Due Process and Equal Protections grounds. A state can ban marriage based on gender any more than they can ban marriage based on race. Both deprive people of equal protection under the law.
And yes, substantive due process is a thing and it matters.
This is not why people condone abortion.At least you can admit it.
What seems like a bad idea for humanity in general is condoning killing a human just so someone can continue partying.
This is not why people condone abortion.
