Homosexual marriage

Once again,

The word "All" only applied to the issues presented in that one sentence.

Not the whole paragraph.

"All" persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

It says "all" persons are citizens....and "person" and "citizen" is used throughout the whole section.

You need help.......You sound like Clinton debating over what the fuck "Is" means.....except this is way worse.

I fully believe in one's right to suicide as well....... *wink* ....*wink*
Twist it all you want Necritan, but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.
 
How bout section 1 of the 14th amendment???

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Didn't see the words; faggot, sodomite, gay, queer, lesbian, fudge packer, homo, or pervert, anywhere in the 14th Amendment.

But these sick faggots already get due process and equal protection of the laws, just like everone else.

What does gay marriage have to do with a bundle of twigs?

They build little gay bon-fires.....and then they conspire around said gay bonfire...and all that is followed up with gay sex.....and then they smoke fags.
 
Once again,

The word "All" only applied to the issues presented in that one sentence.

Not the whole paragraph.

"All" persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

It says "all" persons are citizens....and "person" and "citizen" is used throughout the whole section.

You need help.......You sound like Clinton debating over what the fuck "Is" means.....except this is way worse.

I fully believe in one's right to suicide as well....... *wink* ....*wink*
Twist it all you want Necritan, but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.

Hmm ... what religious book do you go by again ....

*breaks out the literalist ideals on all of them for the answer*
 
Didn't see the words; faggot, sodomite, gay, queer, lesbian, fudge packer, homo, or pervert, anywhere in the 14th Amendment.

But these sick faggots already get due process and equal protection of the laws, just like everone else.

What does gay marriage have to do with a bundle of twigs?

They build little gay bon-fires.....and then they conspire around said gay bonfire...and all that is followed up with gay sex.....and then they smoke fags.

Damn, other than the sex thing the rest sounds like a blast! How could even a straight person not like parties?
 
Sunni ... if you want to be literal then let's be literal.

Of course the amendment doesn't talk about faggots, gay, or fags.

Yes, you should burn faggots, that's what twigs are good for when bundled up.

Being gay doesn't grant you any extra rights, but having rights can make you very gay.

I smoke fags all the time myself ... roll my own even, menthol is my preferred tobacco flavor though.
 
Oh, and I forgot:

You are more of a Soddomite than most on the board, hell, your god would have gladly turned you to ash with the rest of them when he destroyed the city where thievery, lying, and meaningless violence resided.
 
Once again,

The word "All" only applied to the issues presented in that one sentence.

Not the whole paragraph.

"All" persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

It says "all" persons are citizens....and "person" and "citizen" is used throughout the whole section.

You need help.......You sound like Clinton debating over what the fuck "Is" means.....except this is way worse.

I fully believe in one's right to suicide as well....... *wink* ....*wink*
Twist it all you want Necritan, but it doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.

How have I twisted anything.....??? Any person is a citizen....and therefore any citizen is grated equal rights.

This is so simple.....I figured even a retarded troglodyte such as yourself would see this.
 
Oh, and I forgot:

You are more of a Soddomite than most on the board, hell, your god would have gladly turned you to ash with the rest of them when he destroyed the city where thievery, lying, and meaningless violence resided.

What god is this???

The christian one did it according to their myths, but the word used literally (Soddomite) would mean "a resident of Soddom" ... thus I was using the "literal" meaning like he seems to enjoy trying to use in order to justify his own self hatred.
 
Oh, and I forgot:

You are more of a Soddomite than most on the board, hell, your god would have gladly turned you to ash with the rest of them when he destroyed the city where thievery, lying, and meaningless violence resided.

What god is this???

The christian one did it according to their myths, but the word used literally (Soddomite) would mean "a resident of Soddom" ... thus I was using the "literal" meaning like he seems to enjoy trying to use in order to justify his own self hatred.

Oh....is that his God??

I cant judge God....so if he wants to incinerate soddomites...then thats his deal. We arent the ones to judge.

Additionally.....myths are only myths when proven to be so.....:eusa_whistle:
 
What god is this???

The christian one did it according to their myths, but the word used literally (Soddomite) would mean "a resident of Soddom" ... thus I was using the "literal" meaning like he seems to enjoy trying to use in order to justify his own self hatred.

Oh....is that his God??

I cant judge God....so if he wants to incinerate soddomites...then thats his deal. We arent the ones to judge.

Additionally.....myths are only myths when proven to be so.....:eusa_whistle:

No ... myths are myths until there is evidence to support them ... but off topic.

I was using his logic against him.
 
The sad thing about controversial debates like this is how charged and emotional and hurtful people get toward each other. God aside, what is marriage as defined by law? And what is marriage defined as in general?
 
The sad thing about controversial debates like this is how charged and emotional and hurtful people get toward each other. God aside, what is marriage as defined by law? And what is marriage defined as in general?

I believe it varies from state to state.

mar⋅riage 
–noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
 
Oh, and I forgot:

You are more of a Soddomite than most on the board, hell, your god would have gladly turned you to ash with the rest of them when he destroyed the city where thievery, lying, and meaningless violence resided.

What god is this???

I assume she's referring to the Judeo-Christian God, but I'm frankly lost on which city he reduced to ash for thievery, lying, and meaningless violence.
 
The sad thing about controversial debates like this is how charged and emotional and hurtful people get toward each other. God aside, what is marriage as defined by law? And what is marriage defined as in general?

That one's easy.

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Same definition both times.

And yes, I know that the online dictionaries have added a politically correct definition for those people who want to broaden it to vindicate their own lives, but this is why I stick to the old-fashioned Webster's dictionary I keep on my desk. When words mean everything, they mean nothing.
 
The sad thing about controversial debates like this is how charged and emotional and hurtful people get toward each other. God aside, what is marriage as defined by law? And what is marriage defined as in general?

That one's easy.

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Same definition both times.

And yes, I know that the online dictionaries have added a politically correct definition for those people who want to broaden it to vindicate their own lives, but this is why I stick to the old-fashioned Webster's dictionary I keep on my desk. When words mean everything, they mean nothing.

Are you suggesting that we determine our laws based on the writings of Merriam & Webster?
 
The sad thing about controversial debates like this is how charged and emotional and hurtful people get toward each other. God aside, what is marriage as defined by law? And what is marriage defined as in general?

That one's easy.

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Same definition both times.

And yes, I know that the online dictionaries have added a politically correct definition for those people who want to broaden it to vindicate their own lives, but this is why I stick to the old-fashioned Webster's dictionary I keep on my desk. When words mean everything, they mean nothing.

Are you suggesting that we determine our laws based on the writings of Merriam & Webster?

No, I'm stating emphatically that we determine our laws based on what things actually are, which is reflected in the definitions of the words which represent them.

Marriage is what it is and always has been for a reason, ie. the cumulative wisdom of centuries of human history and experience. That reason is also why our laws up until now regarding marriage have been written the way they were, AND it is the reason that the dictionary defines "marriage" the way it does.

Why is it that any reference source, no matter how reliable and definitive it has been considered in the past, is dismissed as trivial and inconsequential by leftists the second it conflicts with how they want to view the world? Do they honestly want to live in a world where there is no reality and language is reduced to meaningless grunts?
 
That one's easy.

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Same definition both times.

And yes, I know that the online dictionaries have added a politically correct definition for those people who want to broaden it to vindicate their own lives, but this is why I stick to the old-fashioned Webster's dictionary I keep on my desk. When words mean everything, they mean nothing.

Are you suggesting that we determine our laws based on the writings of Merriam & Webster?

No, I'm stating emphatically that we determine our laws based on what things actually are, which is reflected in the definitions of the words which represent them.

Marriage is what it is and always has been for a reason, ie. the cumulative wisdom of centuries of human history and experience. That reason is also why our laws up until now regarding marriage have been written the way they were, AND it is the reason that the dictionary defines "marriage" the way it does.

Why is it that any reference source, no matter how reliable and definitive it has been considered in the past, is dismissed as trivial and inconsequential by leftists the second it conflicts with how they want to view the world? Do they honestly want to live in a world where there is no reality and language is reduced to meaningless grunts?

And therefore, you determine what "marriage" is based on a definition from a 1950s dictionary, because that definition is more correct then a dictionary printed in 2009. Correct?

How about the definition of marriage from the middle ages, when the woman was the property of the man? That definition should be even more correct.
 

Forum List

Back
Top