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.
Democracy and our Constitution is not about "feelings".
in the context that wytch used it 'feelings' means 'opinions' or 'beliefs'. If you don't like her choice of words, take it up with her.
When, why did you say this?
my feelings do matter, just as the feelings of every american matter, its called democracy and freedom.
Actually, it's no matter how often you deny it, I have a legal marriage license. I know you want mine to say something else because you don't feel special enough unless it does, but like your opinion, your feelings don't really matter all that much.
actually wytchey, my feelings do matter, just as the feelings of every american matter, its called democracy and freedom. you want the government to dictate societal acceptance and validation of your aberant lifestyle.
if a majority of americans decide to do that, then so be it. But you are losing every time the people are allowed to vote. You will not always have left wing activist judges to do your bidding.
Continuing to shove this is the face of america, will not further your cause.
your best bet is to STFU about it and see what happens.
you already have the equality you say you want. calling your hook up a marriage does not give you MORE equality.
Wrong. America's "feelings" didn't matter in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what America's "feelings" were then? Do you think we should have considered the "feelings" of the people opposed to interracial marriage?
No, equality isn't fully realized yet. When my legal marriage is as recognized in all 50 states as Bueford's marriage to his 13 year old cousin is recognized, then equality will be realized.
Democracy and our Constitution is not about "feelings".
in the context that wytch used it 'feelings' means 'opinions' or 'beliefs'. If you don't like her choice of words, take it up with her.
Yes, do "take it up with" me. The "feelings" of bigots didn't matter when anti miscegenation laws were overturned. "Feelings" don't trump civil rights.
actually wytchey, my feelings do matter, just as the feelings of every american matter, its called democracy and freedom. you want the government to dictate societal acceptance and validation of your aberant lifestyle.
if a majority of americans decide to do that, then so be it. But you are losing every time the people are allowed to vote. You will not always have left wing activist judges to do your bidding.
Continuing to shove this is the face of america, will not further your cause.
your best bet is to STFU about it and see what happens.
you already have the equality you say you want. calling your hook up a marriage does not give you MORE equality.
Wrong. America's "feelings" didn't matter in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what America's "feelings" were then? Do you think we should have considered the "feelings" of the people opposed to interracial marriage?
No, equality isn't fully realized yet. When my legal marriage is as recognized in all 50 states as Bueford's marriage to his 13 year old cousin is recognized, then equality will be realized.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
actually wytchey, my feelings do matter, just as the feelings of every american matter, its called democracy and freedom. you want the government to dictate societal acceptance and validation of your aberant lifestyle.
if a majority of americans decide to do that, then so be it. But you are losing every time the people are allowed to vote. You will not always have left wing activist judges to do your bidding.
Continuing to shove this is the face of america, will not further your cause.
your best bet is to STFU about it and see what happens.
you already have the equality you say you want. calling your hook up a marriage does not give you MORE equality.
Wrong. America's "feelings" didn't matter in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what America's "feelings" were then? Do you think we should have considered the "feelings" of the people opposed to interracial marriage?
No, equality isn't fully realized yet. When my legal marriage is as recognized in all 50 states as Bueford's marriage to his 13 year old cousin is recognized, then equality will be realized.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
Yes, it would be. Why? Because right now we have gender identified public showers. Are they Constitutional? Don't know, they've never been challenged. You want to? Good luck.
Your Red Herrings, while amusing, have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Your deflection is laughable. It was your diatribe against separate but equal was the issue, not my wants.
The least you could do is defend your own points or admit you're wrong
Interesting
Stating facts is not a deflection. It is a fact that we have public gender identified restrooms and that the separate but equal factor of that has not been challenged. Try this...go into a public shower of the opposite gender, walk in and shower, walk out. When you get arrested, I wish you the best of luck in the legal battle, really I do.
Wrong. America's "feelings" didn't matter in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what America's "feelings" were then? Do you think we should have considered the "feelings" of the people opposed to interracial marriage?
No, equality isn't fully realized yet. When my legal marriage is as recognized in all 50 states as Bueford's marriage to his 13 year old cousin is recognized, then equality will be realized.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
Wrong. America's "feelings" didn't matter in 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what America's "feelings" were then? Do you think we should have considered the "feelings" of the people opposed to interracial marriage?
No, equality isn't fully realized yet. When my legal marriage is as recognized in all 50 states as Bueford's marriage to his 13 year old cousin is recognized, then equality will be realized.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
Your deflection is laughable. It was your diatribe against separate but equal was the issue, not my wants.
The least you could do is defend your own points or admit you're wrong
Interesting
Stating facts is not a deflection. It is a fact that we have public gender identified restrooms and that the separate but equal factor of that has not been challenged. Try this...go into a public shower of the opposite gender, walk in and shower, walk out. When you get arrested, I wish you the best of luck in the legal battle, really I do.
Address the issue that separate but equal is not legal. It appears you can't. Where's the gender discrimination?
Again, you only protest it when it fits your silly argument. Any other example is equally silly. To that point we agree.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
Loving was a man and a woman. it is not analogous to gay marriage. nice try-----but FAIL
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
It's analogous because race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, people's "feelings" about them are. How did people "feel" about interracial marriage? Should their "feelings" about how unnatural and icky Americans "felt" about it have been a factor?
Yes, actually it is precisely analogous to what we're discussing, people's "feelings" on the matter. This is how America "felt" in 1967 (despite it being a man and a woman)
How does America "feel" now?
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
The Greeks were conquered by the pagan Romans.....who also conquered the Egyptians. They were not destroyed from within....the Romans were conquered by the pagan Germanic tribes well AFTER they had become Christianized....the Eastern Christian Empire fell to the Muslims a 1000 years later.
The Aztecs and Incas were viable civilizations DESTROYED by those loving, christian moral compass Europeans.
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
It's analogous because race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, people's "feelings" about them are. How did people "feel" about interracial marriage? Should their "feelings" about how unnatural and icky Americans "felt" about it have been a factor?
OMG, male/female biology is NOT the same as skin pigment--------------you get dumber with each post.
Stating facts is not a deflection. It is a fact that we have public gender identified restrooms and that the separate but equal factor of that has not been challenged. Try this...go into a public shower of the opposite gender, walk in and shower, walk out. When you get arrested, I wish you the best of luck in the legal battle, really I do.
Address the issue that separate but equal is not legal. It appears you can't. Where's the gender discrimination?
Again, you only protest it when it fits your silly argument. Any other example is equally silly. To that point we agree.
It's might not be legal. Separate restrooms probably wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. You gonna be the first challenge?
I wouldn't protest restrooms. I don't care. Shared a head with the guys on both my ships.
No, its not analogous. a man and a woman of different races is not the same as two men or two women.
if you want to go back to the time when interracial marriage was not legal, then you need to also look at how homosexuality was viewed at that time.
Cultures change over time. The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians all destroyed their cultures when the lost their moral compass and went to a "anything goes" view of sexuality and human behavior in general. We are following that pattern, and you are helping with the destruction of our civilization----------happy?
and I guaranfuckingtee you that the next shoes to fall will be bigamy and polygamy. Then brother/brother, mother/daughter, and every other possible combination of "marriage".
we are witnessing the beginning of the end unless we stop it.
It's analogous because race and sexual orientation aren't being compared, people's "feelings" about them are. How did people "feel" about interracial marriage? Should their "feelings" about how unnatural and icky Americans "felt" about it have been a factor?
OMG, male/female biology is NOT the same as skin pigment--------------you get dumber with each post.
Stating facts is not a deflection. It is a fact that we have public gender identified restrooms and that the separate but equal factor of that has not been challenged. Try this...go into a public shower of the opposite gender, walk in and shower, walk out. When you get arrested, I wish you the best of luck in the legal battle, really I do.
Address the issue that separate but equal is not legal. It appears you can't. Where's the gender discrimination?
Again, you only protest it when it fits your silly argument. Any other example is equally silly. To that point we agree.
It's might not be legal. Separate restrooms probably wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. You gonna be the first challenge?
I wouldn't protest restrooms. I don't care. Shared a head with the guys on both my ships.[/QUOTE]
When did you get out? When I was on the USS Holland in late 80's (the only ship I served on that was coed), men and women did not share berthing or the head.
Address the issue that separate but equal is not legal. It appears you can't. Where's the gender discrimination?
Again, you only protest it when it fits your silly argument. Any other example is equally silly. To that point we agree.
It's might not be legal. Separate restrooms probably wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. You gonna be the first challenge?
I wouldn't protest restrooms. I don't care. Shared a head with the guys on both my ships.[/QUOTE]
When did you get out? When I was on the USS Holland in late 80's (the only ship I served on that was coed), men and women did not share berthing or the head.
That was the Navy. I served in the oldest seagoing service.
Address the issue that separate but equal is not legal. It appears you can't. Where's the gender discrimination?
Again, you only protest it when it fits your silly argument. Any other example is equally silly. To that point we agree.
It's might not be legal. Separate restrooms probably wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. You gonna be the first challenge?
I wouldn't protest restrooms. I don't care. Shared a head with the guys on both my ships.
Your middle name must be deflect?
A gay women and her gay lover may go to the gym, work out and shower together while a heterosexual may not. Nothing unconstitutional about it.
Now, who is being discriminated against?
Since you cannot discriminate based on gender, when it comes to marriage (your argument), then no gender based discrimination could be allowed. Let's market that to the mothers and fathers of the world. This is why is your teenage daughter will have to share a restroom with men?
Same sex marriage advocates demanded gender neutral laws.
Interesting
Your support will fall through the floor.
Good luck
