Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[DOTR]

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

Gay marriage licenses should be opposed because to do otherwise would give the impression society valued the idea of two men marrying.
Use that argument to support gay marriage licenses please.

 

[WinterBorn]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

 

[DOTR]

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

I believe, and the citizens of this country, believe issuing gay marriages undermines families. You claimed you could use this to support gay marriage licenses. I would like to see that.

 

[DOTR]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

 

[DOTR]

That is what marriage is dipstick. The legal recognition of a relationship by the legal system.

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

Should I give more reasons...so you can NOT use more of them to support gay marriage licenses?

 

[WinterBorn]

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.

If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules. You don't.

 

[WinterBorn]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

 

[DOTR]

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.

If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules. You don't.

I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.

 

[DOTR]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

So really weren't intending to take any reason I give for opposing gay marriage licenses and use it to support gay marriage licenses. You were just saying that?

 

[WinterBorn]

That is what it is NOW. And there is no reason for it.

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

Ok I have several reasons. One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.

I'll answer them separately.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The discussion is about the legal aspects or constitutionality of gay marriage. The rules of the catholic church do not apply.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The history of our culture and our country is not stagnant, and it never has been. Until the 19th amendment, no woman was allowed to vote. Until the 13th amendment, men could own other men. Because it has never been done does not mean anything.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
The US Constitution protects the minorities from the majority. During the Civil Rights movement, at no time was the majority of the population in the South in favor of equal rights for blacks. States cannot override what the US Constitution guarantees.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage. I dont think so. Twist that to suit your gay marriage licenses.
Whatever "impression" someone has is irrelevant. But, other than giving birth to children without outside assistance, same sex marriages are as beneficial as opposite sex marriages.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families. Twist that to support gay marriage licenses.
You can believe whatever you want. Unless you can show actual damage, you are simply inventing shit (again). Families are not effected by someone else's marriage. That gay couple down the street lived together for years. Now they have a license and benefits. Nothing changed as far as any families are concerned. But it WOULD be nice if the concerns for what damages families extended to other areas.

Huge fail. You were bragging you could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses. Want to try again?

Huge fail? LMAO!! You don't like the answers so it is a fail?

Are the rules of the catholic church laws of the land? No.
Is the fact that something has always been a certain way a reason to continue that way? No.
Is a majority vote a reason to deny rights to a minority? No.
Is someone's impression a reason to do it either? No.
Is your belief that it damages family the same as it actually damaging families? No.

And once again, you lied. I did not say I "...could use any reason as a support for gay marriage licenses.". I said "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages". You did not offer a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You posted reasons you don't think it should.

So stop lying and read what I actually say. Is that so difficult? Are you a chronic liar?

Should I give more reasons...so you can NOT use more of them to support gay marriage licenses?

It would be nice if you gave me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You have not done that.

But it is 12:40 am, and you have continually lied, misquoted me, and made baseless claims that you pretend are facts. I have enjoyed making you look foolish. But I have to go to work in the morning. So you will have all night to come upwith reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage.

 

[DOTR]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

 

[WinterBorn]

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.

If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules. You don't.

I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.

And what did I say? "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages."

You did not offer one single reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. Not a single one.

 

[DOTR]

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

If that were true you wouldn't have had to disenfranchise that society now would you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

 

[DOTR]

Three the people of the United States oppose gay marriage licenses and in fact proved it at the ballot box dozens of times. Use that to support gay marriage please.

If the people of the United States voted to imprison all left-handed people or to make private gun ownership illegal or to make blacks slaves again, it would still be unconstitutional and would be overturned.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that you live in a democracy where the majority always rules. You don't.

I seem to be laboring under the misconception that you were going to do as you said...again.

And what did I say? "Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages."

You did not offer one single reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. Not a single one.

I offered five. Sorry you dont get to pick reasons for me to support traditional marriage only. Your job was to do as you said..take ANY reason I gave and use it to support gay marriage licenses.
Your failure, when outside the old bounds, was pretty much expected.

 

[DOTR]

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get to pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

 

[DOTR]

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter? Okey dokey.

Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?

 

[WinterBorn]

Any reason you can offer for the gov't to recognize marriage, can also be used for same sex marriages.

There it is plain as day. I gave you plenty of reasons. Use them to support gay marriage licenses.

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

Pretend you work for the gov't. And you were looking for reasons to license and recognize marriage.

If one of your people said "The Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "In the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "The people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said"Gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage".
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.

Or if they said "I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families"
Would that be a reason for our gov't to recognize a marriage? No.


If you cannot tell the difference between offering reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage (hint:this would be the gov't recognizing straight marriage), then I cannot respond by showing you how gay marriages would provide the same reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, liar, you did not. You did not give me one reason for the gov't to recognize marriage. You gave me 5 reasons against gay marriage. I refuted each one.

One the Catholic church sets certain rules for marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, itis not.

Two in the history of our country, our culture, our religion no man has ever been allowed to marry a man.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Three the people of the states limited marriage to only a man and a woman. it is the will of the people ratified by over 37 votes.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Four gay marriage licenses will give the impression that society considers legal recognition of gay marriage as beneficial as legal recognition of traditional marriage.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

Five I believe, and society believes that consenting to a license for two men in a relationship is damaging to families.
Is that a reason for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, it is not.

So the "huge fail" is on your part. Apparently you can't comprehend what you read and you can't stop lying.

Wow. Im not convinced sorry. Here i thought I was going to see you use those arguments to support gay marriage licenses. Another lie from you I suppose.

Did you offer reasons for the gov't to recognize marriage? No, you did not. Unless you do, your fail is huge.

I offered five of them. That you dont like them is one thing. That you cant use them to support gay marriage licenses is another.

No, you did not. None of those is a reason for gov't to recognize marriage. Maybe have your Mom read what I said I would do and explain what it means. I am done with your inability to comprehend teh written word.

LOL Yep you had a set you have been taught to ape an answer to. And I refused the liberal script. I say again you slimy liberal YOU dont get top pick the reasons I oppose gay marriage licenses.

I never tried to do that.

I said that any reason you can give for the gov't to recognize marriage. That means you have to show a reason why the gov't should recognize straight marriages, and the same could be said of gay marriage.

I never said I would refute every imagined bit of nonsense you spout about gay marriage. You really cannot comprehend what you read, can you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.


Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman

So you admit that the men who wrote the 14th amendment, perhaps because of "killing and shunning gays", did not consider for a second that they were legalizing gay marriage? You will admit that the law they wrote is twisted from their purpose to something they would have found abominable?

Orwellian

I have no idea whether Holmes, Warren, Brennan, Black, Grant, Kennedy, or Roosevelt thought about homosexuality. And I doubt you do either. And really, it does not matter at all. Society has grown out of its hatred for homosexuality, at least most of it has.

Doesnt matter what they thought. They didn't see it in the 14th amendment did they?

You claim that they didn't consider for second, and yet you claim what they thought doesn't matter? Okey dokey.

Did they or didnt those mean old homophobes who wrote the law intend for it to be used for gay marriage licenses?

Your ignorant, inability to read ms you won't understand my answers anyway. That you continue to lie, over and over and over, means you haven't the intellect to carry on a serious conversation. That you resort to name-calling instead of discussion means you are clueless and think personal attacks are a substitute for facts.

I'm going to bed. Have someone read my posts to you and explain what they mean. You are obviously too ignorant to comprehend.