DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[KevinWestern]

Talk about having no capacity to fit new information into your tiny little pinhead...

There will have to be a legal basis for creating a federal right for homos like you to marry. such a basis will stand as..... get this..... foundation that will not only apply to you homos. You are not special, any more than us regular folks are. you consider yourself pretty high and mighty, but you are pretty thick about considering the consequences of enacting new, broad legal standards.

Damn those "uppity" gays! Don't they know their place?

They used to before our society began degrading and promoting filth and vulgarity.

Ah yes, before our society began degrading... like the good ole days when we used to ship human beings from Africa on slave ships to come work on our plantations for 15 hours a day with no pay. It's estimated about 8-10 million human souls died on those voyages in total.

Upon arrival, entire families would have to stand naked in a market place and be sold off to various white entrepreneurs, all usually going in different directions... never to see one another again.

Imagine being split apart from your wife and kids.. forever.

Oh so sad, how we continue to degrade and fall from that golden age of ethical and moral excellency excellency.....



.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In the case of incest, the progeny suffers from lack of genetic diversity. Although one outcome of marriage is the probability of off spring, in cases of incest and the resulting suffering, incestuous marriage should not be permitted.

Some contracts can result in bad outcomes. That's why each and every contract is not protected by law. If you contract me to spray your orchard with DDT, we would enter into a contract which would have bad results for more than both you and I. If, on the other hand, you contract me to spray your orchard with a safe and effective pesticide and I follow all the manufacturer's instructions and all state and federal laws concerning pesticides, our contract would then have the protection of law.

If a contract is beneficial to those parties in the contract and the greater society, there is no problem. What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect the greater society? What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect you personally? What harm is wrought to you?

why limit the exclusion of marriage to only related partners? There are plenty of straight people with predispositions to unhealthy offspring.

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

I thought marriage was a right. Now you say some don't have the same right s as others?

 

[Nosmo King]

why limit the exclusion of marriage to only related partners? There are plenty of straight people with predispositions to unhealthy offspring.

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

I thought marriage was a right. Now you say some don't have the same right s as others?

I said access to the protections of contract law is a right. And I said that not all contracts are beneficial contracts. Too tough to understand?

 

[Pho_King]

In the case of incest, the progeny suffers from lack of genetic diversity. Although one outcome of marriage is the probability of off spring, in cases of incest and the resulting suffering, incestuous marriage should not be permitted.

Some contracts can result in bad outcomes. That's why each and every contract is not protected by law. If you contract me to spray your orchard with DDT, we would enter into a contract which would have bad results for more than both you and I. If, on the other hand, you contract me to spray your orchard with a safe and effective pesticide and I follow all the manufacturer's instructions and all state and federal laws concerning pesticides, our contract would then have the protection of law.

If a contract is beneficial to those parties in the contract and the greater society, there is no problem. What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect the greater society? What parts of same sex marriage adversely effect you personally? What harm is wrought to you?

why limit the exclusion of marriage to only related partners? There are plenty of straight people with predispositions to unhealthy offspring.

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

Incestuous children are born all the time with no apparent defects. And non-incestuous progeny are born all the time with defects. It seems as though, based on your "possibility of biological harm to the offspring" analysis, it is not only incestuous partners that should be excluded from marriage. Couples like my parents- who both carried traits for early onset osteoarthritis, should never have been able to marry. On another level, why is childbirth even considered? Why discriminate against such couples concerning marriage? Childbirth is the issue. Why not prohibit them from having sexual relations? Or going forth with a pregnancy? Neither are legal benefits of marriage. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Polk]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The probability of incestuous off spring suffering from genetic problems is far greater than some unknown or yet undiscovered genetic problem between non-related people.

Some states require blood tests to alert couples of potential problems.

I thought marriage was a right. Now you say some don't have the same right s as others?

I said access to the protections of contract law is a right. And I said that not all contracts are beneficial contracts. Too tough to understand?

So marriage is not a right?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

If only Hollywood and MTV conditioned the masses more frequently with the homosexual agenda there might be more "acceptance"...................lol

I get it now. You adopted the username "LogikAndReazon" as a sense of irony!

If only Hollywood and MTV conditioned the masses more frequently with the negro agenda there might be more "acceptance"...........lol

If only Hollywood and MTV conditioned the masses more frequently with the **** agenda there might be more "acceptance"...................lol

If only Hollywood and MTV conditioned the masses more frequently with the Wop agenda there might be more "acceptance"...................lol

People like you have been around a long time. And just like homosexuality, natural selection does not breed them out.

I wonder where the bigot gene is.

Surely with those womanly hysterics g5000 must be the "bride" in the relationship........perhaps even a very undignified RAINBOW FLAME

Once again, no one cares what homosexuals do as long as they stop pretending whom marriage was intended for..............Simple Eh ???

 

[Pho_King]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

 

[BDBoop]

So much flouncing, yet nobody leaves. The butthurt is strong in this thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

 

[Pho_King]

So much flouncing, yet nobody leaves. The butthurt is strong in this thread.

If anyone knows about butthurt, cupcake, it is you, what with those speedbumps on your arse you've been complaining about.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So much flouncing, yet nobody leaves. The butthurt is strong in this thread.

I'm sorry you have that butt hurt feeling
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-RRO6leL8]Mp3 Butt Hurt Feelings ! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Polk]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Not really, because the restrictions must be based on certain standards.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Not really, because the restrictions must be based on certain standards.

Aids thrives in gay sex.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

Once again, a completely off-topic and irrelevant comment by you, big...

.

 

[Polk]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

 

[Pho_King]

Yes. The government can restrict the exercise of rights subject to certain constraints.

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Of course they will. As will men that want to live in the same house as two wives. Or in seperate houses with two wives that don't know about each other. I have yet to hear a compelling reason that marriage must be permitted between any to consenting unrelated adults, that does not similarly justify marriage between any two consenting adults.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Ah yes, maybe all 20 people who want to marry their sister in the United States?

I can't think of a topic that is less important or less relevant....

.

No one knows how many brothers and sisters have had sex and love each other beyond brotherly and sisterly love. But once you open the door you will find out.

 

[KevinWestern]

Aids thrives in gay sex.

You sound (cough) just like a well-educated medical doctor.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that is correct. And if the law regarding those restrictions is altered, it does no good to ignore the foot in the door that the reasoning behind the loosening will open.

It is a trmendous detriment to the pro homo marriage crowds objectives that they stick their heads in the sand about such issues, and merely say "Of all the heretofore excluded relationships, we are the only one that should be admitted into the fold".

Yep once gays are given the right then brothers and sisters will demand the same rights to marriage.

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

Either marriage is a right for everybody or it's not if it's not a right then gays should not have the right too marry.