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.
Hardly, since monogamy, statistically speaking, is rare within the homosexual community.
At least within the 2500 or so they interviewed.
When I was single back in the late 70s, I was pretty promiscuous too. Then I found one person and settled down. That is what these people are seeking.
Unless you can show any other group that was banned from marrying because they were promiscuous?
Oh, I get it, the statistics didn't matter until they matter in order to dismiss them? Yes, I know you didn't like the response, you thought your last post was clever. Pick a square and land on it. The sample share is bigger then most sample shares, statistically speaking. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a very promiscuous group. Monogamy is not the norm.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
Good, now that that deflection is cleared up - can we address how the Massachusetts state laws were used to make a federal law unconstitutional under the federal Constitution.
>>>>
I am not sure that's what happened. But a STATE court is allowed to pass judgment on the Constitutionality (under the FEDERAL Constitution) of any law that comes across it's bench.
The STATE Court determination may not enjoy much of a shelf life, but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden from making the ruling.
That's not what he said (a state court finding something unconstitutional). He said the court (which in this case was actually a federal court) found the federal law unconstitutional based on the laws of Massachusetts and not because of a defect in the law when compared to the federal Constitution.
(Now you and I know that was probably a mistake on BigReb's part, just like all the Judges ruling on the case are homosexuals, just seeing if he will admit his error.)
>>>>
At least within the 2500 or so they interviewed.
When I was single back in the late 70s, I was pretty promiscuous too. Then I found one person and settled down. That is what these people are seeking.
Unless you can show any other group that was banned from marrying because they were promiscuous?
Oh, I get it, the statistics didn't matter until they matter in order to dismiss them? Yes, I know you didn't like the response, you thought your last post was clever. Pick a square and land on it. The sample share is bigger then most sample shares, statistically speaking. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a very promiscuous group. Monogamy is not the norm.
I never said statistic don't matter. What I said was that the promiscuity of a portion of the gay community doesn't matter in a discussion about gays wanting to marry. If they are wanting to marry they are obviously in a committed relationship.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
I am not sure that's what happened. But a STATE court is allowed to pass judgment on the Constitutionality (under the FEDERAL Constitution) of any law that comes across it's bench.
The STATE Court determination may not enjoy much of a shelf life, but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden from making the ruling.
That's not what he said (a state court finding something unconstitutional). He said the court (which in this case was actually a federal court) found the federal law unconstitutional based on the laws of Massachusetts and not because of a defect in the law when compared to the federal Constitution.
(Now you and I know that was probably a mistake on BigReb's part, just like all the Judges ruling on the case are homosexuals, just seeing if he will admit his error.)
>>>>
So saying the first circuit court of appeals is not a lower court and fine with you. But me saying that a court in Boston ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not a surprise is not ok. Got it.
While it could be argued that two men (or two women) having sexual intercourse with each other and only each other can't harm anyone else, the fact is that homosexuality is not a "monogomous affair." The homosexual lifestyle is by nature promiscuous, as the facts demonstrate.
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (See more statistics on Promiscuity at Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
To ignore the facts of incredible sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is the admission that the problem exists, and by ignoring it they hope it goes away. Also, to ignore the facts of such promiscuity is dangerous in itself since policies and arguments are made based on facts. To ignore the facts means the policies and arguments are not sound when used to promote the homosexual lifestyle.
That's not what he said (a state court finding something unconstitutional). He said the court (which in this case was actually a federal court) found the federal law unconstitutional based on the laws of Massachusetts and not because of a defect in the law when compared to the federal Constitution.
(Now you and I know that was probably a mistake on BigReb's part, just like all the Judges ruling on the case are homosexuals, just seeing if he will admit his error.)
>>>>
So saying the first circuit court of appeals is not a lower court and fine with you. But me saying that a court in Boston ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not a surprise is not ok. Got it.
No, that is not what anyone said.
Oh, I get it, the statistics didn't matter until they matter in order to dismiss them? Yes, I know you didn't like the response, you thought your last post was clever. Pick a square and land on it. The sample share is bigger then most sample shares, statistically speaking. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a very promiscuous group. Monogamy is not the norm.
I never said statistic don't matter. What I said was that the promiscuity of a portion of the gay community doesn't matter in a discussion about gays wanting to marry. If they are wanting to marry they are obviously in a committed relationship.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
So saying the first circuit court of appeals is not a lower court and fine with you. But me saying that a court in Boston ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not a surprise is not ok. Got it.
No, that is not what anyone said.
Yes YOU did.
No what you claimed was the first circuit court was a federal court and was not a lower court.No, that is not what anyone said.
Yes YOU did.
That is not what I was asking you about and you know it. That the court in Boston made the ruling is NOT what I, or anyone else, was talking to you about.
Oh, I get it, the statistics didn't matter until they matter in order to dismiss them? Yes, I know you didn't like the response, you thought your last post was clever. Pick a square and land on it. The sample share is bigger then most sample shares, statistically speaking. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals are a very promiscuous group. Monogamy is not the norm.
I never said statistic don't matter. What I said was that the promiscuity of a portion of the gay community doesn't matter in a discussion about gays wanting to marry. If they are wanting to marry they are obviously in a committed relationship.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
(allie is nuttier than a fruitcake) You are entitled to your belief, but universal marriage appears to as inevitable as America becomes darker and younger and forward looking.
I never said statistic don't matter. What I said was that the promiscuity of a portion of the gay community doesn't matter in a discussion about gays wanting to marry. If they are wanting to marry they are obviously in a committed relationship.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
You do not speak morally for the community, only for yourself. Only koshergrlalliebaba can speak for the community
No what you claimed was the first circuit court was a federal court and was not a lower court.Yes YOU did.
That is not what I was asking you about and you know it. That the court in Boston made the ruling is NOT what I, or anyone else, was talking to you about.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
You do not speak morally for the community, only for yourself. Only koshergrlalliebaba can speak for the community
since you are not part of the moral majority you don't have a say in the matter.
What I said was a court in Massachusetts ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not surprising.No what you claimed was the first circuit court was a federal court and was not a lower court.That is not what I was asking you about and you know it. That the court in Boston made the ruling is NOT what I, or anyone else, was talking to you about.
And I admitted the mistake.
But what you said, and stuck with, was "And why would there be any doubt that a lower court in Massachusetts would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws".
Now would you like to admit you were wrong there? Or will you continue to claim the court ruled DOMA was unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws?
I never said statistic don't matter. What I said was that the promiscuity of a portion of the gay community doesn't matter in a discussion about gays wanting to marry. If they are wanting to marry they are obviously in a committed relationship.
I also challenged that you show any other group that was denied marriage based on statistical probability of promiscuity. Its that whole equality thing again.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
Many people are promiscuous before they marry. Again, since this is never an issue raised by any about any other group, it is irrelevant here.
What I said was a court in Massachusetts ruling that the DOMA is unconstitutional is not surprising.No what you claimed was the first circuit court was a federal court and was not a lower court.
And I admitted the mistake.
But what you said, and stuck with, was "And why would there be any doubt that a lower court in Massachusetts would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws".
Now would you like to admit you were wrong there? Or will you continue to claim the court ruled DOMA was unconstitutional in accordance with Massachusetts state laws?
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
Many people are promiscuous before they marry. Again, since this is never an issue raised by any about any other group, it is irrelevant here.
What BS! Of course it is relevant. Statistically, homosexuals are NOT a monogamous group. That is why the discussion has relevance- successful marriages for the majority of couples, require monogamy. The sheer volume of different partners homosexuals admit having, seriously calls into question their ability to sustain a "commitment" to marriage.
Re-writing law to include a group whose behavior is by and large destructive with much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity is stupid and ignorant; all so people can feel "inclusive".
The homosexual lifestyle will never afford homosexuals a true sense of normalcy. No matter how far they can bend society to accept them, they cannot make their behavior natural.
It's not merely a "portion" its statistically speaking- rampant. Statistics with this issue matter. Marriage is a social construct that is historically and traditionally, been the joining of a man and woman for the purpose of strengthening community through the stability of family. The root word for marriage comes from the same root for mother.
Homosexual behavior is by and large destructive. They have much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity within their community, then the rest of the population.
Changing our definition of marriage to include same sex unions is wrong. It will not make their behavior normal. Their behavior is that of a sexual deviance from the norm. It is as abnormal, as having sex with a cow. It is against our natural design.
Many people are promiscuous before they marry. Again, since this is never an issue raised by any about any other group, it is irrelevant here.
What BS! Of course it is relevant. Statistically, homosexuals are NOT a monogamous group. That is why the discussion has relevance- successful marriages for the majority of couples, require monogamy. The sheer volume of different partners homosexuals admit having, seriously calls into question their ability to sustain a "commitment" to marriage.
Re-writing law to include a group whose behavior is by and large destructive with much higher suicide rates; disease; addiction and promiscuity is stupid and ignorant; all so people can feel "inclusive".
The homosexual lifestyle will never afford homosexuals a true sense of normalcy. No matter how far they can bend society to accept them, they cannot make their behavior natural.
