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.
The contract with the government should be called a civil union, not a marriage, and should be open to any combination of consenting adults that want in.There's no such thing as "Gay Marriage". And homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else... none of which provide that they're empowered to force someone else to accept their perversion of human sexuality.
If you knew what right were, from where they come and what sustains them... you'd know that.
Mind your ignorance, it'll spare ya this sort of humiliation in the future.
Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.
You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.
The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.
Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.
That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.
BZZZT Wrong!
You don't get to redefine marriage to suit yourself.
Marriage between 2 consenting adults is now legal in 31 states. Those marriages are equal in all respects under the law and in the eyes of the individuals involved and their loved ones.
Marriage, as with the mammal and the human within that group, and the biological imperative common to each, are defined by nature. If you lack the means to understand that, THAT is your problem. That you lack the objectivity to recognize that, forcing you to demand that others lean down to accept your limited perspective, is also your problem... both are likely beyond your means to overcome, thus limiting your viability.
I only WISH i had the means to help you, but I fear, I do not.
Best of luck tho'... .
Marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the government.
The only reason why you want to deny homosexual people the marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex.
There are only 3 criteria for a legal contract. They are:
1. The people must be 18 years of age or older.
2. The people must be of sound mind.
2. The people can't sign that contract under duress.
That's it. There's no requirement to be a certain sex. In fact, we have very specific laws that make it illegal to deny someone a legal contract based on their sex. We also have a constitution amendment that requires that our government treat everyone equally under the law.
So either you hate our constitution and laws or you just are uninformed of our laws. I find it very hard to believe that you don't know our laws so I'm going to go with the fact that you hate our constitution and laws.
Why not move to a country that doesn't respect personal freedom and equality that outlaws homosexuals being married. Iran is one of them. Russia is another. I'm sure you would be much happier in one of those nations. There are flights to those nations daily. If you hate our laws and constitution so much take one of those flights and don't return.
Your posts are so stupid I can't get through a whole one without being totally disgusted at your stupidity and ignorance.
The contract with the government should be called a civil union, not a marriage, and should be open to any combination of consenting adults that want in.Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.
You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.
The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.
Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.
That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.
BZZZT Wrong!
You don't get to redefine marriage to suit yourself.
Marriage between 2 consenting adults is now legal in 31 states. Those marriages are equal in all respects under the law and in the eyes of the individuals involved and their loved ones.
Marriage, as with the mammal and the human within that group, and the biological imperative common to each, are defined by nature. If you lack the means to understand that, THAT is your problem. That you lack the objectivity to recognize that, forcing you to demand that others lean down to accept your limited perspective, is also your problem... both are likely beyond your means to overcome, thus limiting your viability.
I only WISH i had the means to help you, but I fear, I do not.
Best of luck tho'... .
Marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the government.
The only reason why you want to deny homosexual people the marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex.
There are only 3 criteria for a legal contract. They are:
1. The people must be 18 years of age or older.
2. The people must be of sound mind.
2. The people can't sign that contract under duress.
That's it. There's no requirement to be a certain sex. In fact, we have very specific laws that make it illegal to deny someone a legal contract based on their sex. We also have a constitution amendment that requires that our government treat everyone equally under the law.
So either you hate our constitution and laws or you just are uninformed of our laws. I find it very hard to believe that you don't know our laws so I'm going to go with the fact that you hate our constitution and laws.
Why not move to a country that doesn't respect personal freedom and equality that outlaws homosexuals being married. Iran is one of them. Russia is another. I'm sure you would be much happier in one of those nations. There are flights to those nations daily. If you hate our laws and constitution so much take one of those flights and don't return.
I don't care if ten people sign a clusterfuck agreement with themselves and the government, but, it isn't marriage.
Now, after the contract(this should apply to ALL people) they can get "married" in any church that will have them.
Problem solved.
Why do you think murder is illegal and immoral?
No it's not. Murder is illegal because it deprives another of their right to life. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting me from you. No moral justification needed.
After SCOTUS declared sodomy laws unconstitutional [Lawrence v Texas], any legal argument for banning same-sex marriage was obliterated. The only remaining arguments were non-legal recitations of bible babble bigotry offered to justify state bans on interracial marriage which SCOTUS invalidated in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. Fortunately, the US Constitution trumps the bible in American jurisprudence.
Again, it's all very irrelevant stuff, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.No it's not. Murder is illegal because it deprives another of their right to life. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting me from you. No moral justification needed.
The Life, is the moral foundation... The Life was endowed by God. The Supreme Authority of the Universe... who also endowed THE RIGHT TO THE LIFE... which is the reason YOU as a person of the SAME RIGHTS are not in a position to reasonably take the life, which sets equal BEFORE GOD, as your own, except of course, where YOU are defending God's will, through the defense of your own equal right to your life or the life of another innocent; whose life is ALSO equal to your own and the Socialist who presently threatens to strip you of the means to EXERCISE your life... (or the other innocent's means to exercise their life...) .
Again ... this is all VERY basic stuff, yet you are clearly ignorant of these rudimentary facts. How is it that you feel qualified to enter a discussion on issue of which you are clearly ignorant?
This fails as a straw man fallacy and is comprehensively ignorant.
Germany in the 30s was a manifestation of the political right, not 'left.'
Nor are 'the left' in Western democracies in any way associated with the Soviet Union or China today, which were/are one party dictatorships whose very existence is anathema to the principles expressed by the left seeking to safeguard individual liberty and the rule of law.
Again, it's all very irrelevant stuff, having no bearing whatsoever on the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law pursuant to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.No it's not. Murder is illegal because it deprives another of their right to life. Morality has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting me from you. No moral justification needed.
The Life, is the moral foundation... The Life was endowed by God. The Supreme Authority of the Universe... who also endowed THE RIGHT TO THE LIFE... which is the reason YOU as a person of the SAME RIGHTS are not in a position to reasonably take the life, which sets equal BEFORE GOD, as your own, except of course, where YOU are defending God's will, through the defense of your own equal right to your life or the life of another innocent; whose life is ALSO equal to your own and the Socialist who presently threatens to strip you of the means to EXERCISE your life... (or the other innocent's means to exercise their life...) .
Again ... this is all VERY basic stuff, yet you are clearly ignorant of these rudimentary facts. How is it that you feel qualified to enter a discussion on issue of which you are clearly ignorant?
After SCOTUS declared sodomy laws unconstitutional [Lawrence v Texas], any legal argument for banning same-sex marriage was obliterated. The only remaining arguments were non-legal recitations of bible babble bigotry offered to justify state bans on interracial marriage which SCOTUS invalidated in 1967 [Loving v Virginia]. Fortunately, the US Constitution trumps the bible in American jurisprudence.
Yes, bad decisions produce unenviable consequences... '... it has always been thus...'
Of course the Bible has been among the most sought after tomes for thousands upon thousands of years... and the United States, founded upon the principles intrinsic to that tome, is in stark decline in well short of two minuscule centuries... BECAUSE the citizenry has lost kinship with those principles... .
Pretty cool how consistent nature is, are it not?
I have no idea what the hell you just wrote.
Where-r-my-synapses has some serious problems with reality.
Nowhere has he produced a single bible verse enumerating the rights that his God allegedly bestowed on anyone.
He is under the delusion that marriage is a religious ceremony as opposed to a legal contract. Holy Matrimony is the name of the religious ceremony. Marriage is defined by the State. When a minister of religion conducts a Holy Matrimony ceremony he is still required by law to have the couple sign a marriage contract.
When it comes to the constitution he is in LaLaLand. As far as history goes he doesn't have a clue how the national socialists transformed themselves into Fascists.
Perhaps most egregious of all is the fact that why-am-i-clueless is utterly incapable of engaging in any kind of coherent rational debate.
Where-r-my-synapses has some serious problems with reality.
Nowhere has he produced a single bible verse enumerating the rights that his God allegedly bestowed on anyone.
He is under the delusion that marriage is a religious ceremony as opposed to a legal contract. Holy Matrimony is the name of the religious ceremony. Marriage is defined by the State. When a minister of religion conducts a Holy Matrimony ceremony he is still required by law to have the couple sign a marriage contract.
When it comes to the constitution he is in LaLaLand. As far as history goes he doesn't have a clue how the national socialists transformed themselves into Fascists.
Perhaps most egregious of all is the fact that why-am-i-clueless is utterly incapable of engaging in any kind of coherent rational debate.
Your concession (expressed in this instance in the form of a straw argument) is duly noted and summarily accepted.
With regard to your final points:
The biological design of humanity, set with the imperative of same establishes the marriage standard.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man... for the purpose of procreation, which provides for the female to be sustained during gestation... and a stable environment to raise children, wherein the complimenting natures of the male and female have the highest opportunity to produce a balanced individual well suited to do the same for the next generation; which may or may not be further indicated by a legal instrument attesting to that union and providing certain legal protections and privileges.
National socialism is socialism with a nationalist bent. Set distinct from international socialism by its practical recognition that revolutionary, international socialism would never be possible on any significant scale... other than that, there is absolutely NO DISTINCTION between to two equally irrational 'feelings', thus we can rest assured that national socialism has NO KINSHIP with the principles of nature which found the ideas regarding the only means to sustain the collective is for the individuals of which is summed, to be mindful and jealous guardians of their rights and the responsibilities that the means to exercise those rights, OKA: Americans, AKA: The Ideological Right.
Where-r-my-synapses has some serious problems with reality.
Nowhere has he produced a single bible verse enumerating the rights that his God allegedly bestowed on anyone.
He is under the delusion that marriage is a religious ceremony as opposed to a legal contract. Holy Matrimony is the name of the religious ceremony. Marriage is defined by the State. When a minister of religion conducts a Holy Matrimony ceremony he is still required by law to have the couple sign a marriage contract.
When it comes to the constitution he is in LaLaLand. As far as history goes he doesn't have a clue how the national socialists transformed themselves into Fascists.
Perhaps most egregious of all is the fact that why-am-i-clueless is utterly incapable of engaging in any kind of coherent rational debate.
Your concession (expressed in this instance in the form of a straw argument) is duly noted and summarily accepted.
With regard to your final points:
The biological design of humanity, set with the imperative of same establishes the marriage standard.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man... for the purpose of procreation, which provides for the female to be sustained during gestation... and a stable environment to raise children, wherein the complimenting natures of the male and female have the highest opportunity to produce a balanced individual well suited to do the same for the next generation; which may or may not be further indicated by a legal instrument attesting to that union and providing certain legal protections and privileges.
National socialism is socialism with a nationalist bent. Set distinct from international socialism by its practical recognition that revolutionary, international socialism would never be possible on any significant scale... other than that, there is absolutely NO DISTINCTION between to two equally irrational 'feelings', thus we can rest assured that national socialism has NO KINSHIP with the principles of nature which found the ideas regarding the only means to sustain the collective is for the individuals of which is summed, to be mindful and jealous guardians of their rights and the responsibilities that the means to exercise those rights, OKA: Americans, AKA: The Ideological Right.
Your pseudo intellectual drivel is amusing however don't deceive yourself into believing that you are the single authority on the subject. Just as you made a fool of yourself over the definition of homophobic you doing the same thing when it comes to what defines marriage.
Well it looks like the ladies are played out, once more.
So... once again, when the inevitable newbie comes along and asks the question: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"
Be sure to link them directly back to this FORMAL EVISCERATION of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the deceitful practices fraudulently employed by evil, (OKA: The Ideological Left) as a means to influence the ignorant.
It's been real kids... rest up and get ready for the next round.
