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.
Look Pal, you accused me of misrepresenting you on your positions . I'll accept the possibility that I somehow did and I am giving you a chance to set it straight. One of the questions is directly related to the "proposition at hand" What is you position on adoption? But you would not answer it. The other two are also relation as they have to do with gay rights. What are you hiding? You're just playing games here, and you call ME an ass hole?Thank you for confirming the fact that you do not have the intestinal fortitude to state your position on Lawrence indicating to me that you're against it. Do your gay friends know"?What in the name of Christ are you blathering about now. ? That someone said that Lawrence is "settled law" ? That is not saying that it cannot be overturned. It's just not likely to be, just like Obergefell is unlikely to be overturned
You really do hate the Lawrence ruling, don't you?
I have not stated how I feel about it at all.
I've pointed out that it can be overturned (and asshole CCJ's constant bleating about settled law only works in his favor (in his self-righteous mind). It works both ways.
That's all I have said.
If you want to dispute that...go ahead.
Why, in any universe would I feel obligated to explain my position on anything to you, except the proposition at hand ?
So we can thank you for somehow think you know why I will or won't.
You are typical fucking left wing asshole who struts around all superior....but who can't get it together enough with your fellow left wing assholes to NOT lose an election to one of the biggest morons to ever run for president.
What my gay friends know about how I feel isn't any of your motherfucking business.
1. I am not your pal.
2. I don't need you to give me a chance to do anything. I owe you shit.
3. My posiition has nothing to do with my claim that militants are fucking things up more than they are making them better for people.
4. I called you an asshole and I stand by it.
Look Pal, you accused me of misrepresenting you on your positions . I'll accept the possibility that I somehow did and I am giving you a chance to set it straight. One of the questions is directly related to the "proposition at hand" What is you position on adoption? But you would not answer it. The other two are also relation as they have to do with gay rights. What are you hiding? You're just playing games here, and you call ME an ass hole?Thank you for confirming the fact that you do not have the intestinal fortitude to state your position on Lawrence indicating to me that you're against it. Do your gay friends know"?I have not stated how I feel about it at all.
I've pointed out that it can be overturned (and asshole CCJ's constant bleating about settled law only works in his favor (in his self-righteous mind). It works both ways.
That's all I have said.
If you want to dispute that...go ahead.
Why, in any universe would I feel obligated to explain my position on anything to you, except the proposition at hand ?
So we can thank you for somehow think you know why I will or won't.
You are typical fucking left wing asshole who struts around all superior....but who can't get it together enough with your fellow left wing assholes to NOT lose an election to one of the biggest morons to ever run for president.
What my gay friends know about how I feel isn't any of your motherfucking business.
1. I am not your pal.
2. I don't need you to give me a chance to do anything. I owe you shit.
3. My posiition has nothing to do with my claim that militants are fucking things up more than they are making them better for people.
4. I called you an asshole and I stand by it.
You made it clear that you view any activism as militancy . Fine but this thread is about adoption, and you will not clearly state your position on it. You don't want to have a serious discussion, you just want to hurl insults every chance you get. So fuck off
Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Because there is no law in any state that allows some people to multiple marry, and some not. It continues to be equal treatment under the law. None of us can have legal multiple marriages.Please tell me how these questions are going to add clarrification to what I posted.
But here we go.....
Why can't I marry three or four people ?
Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
Look Pal, you accused me of misrepresenting you on your positions . I'll accept the possibility that I somehow did and I am giving you a chance to set it straight. One of the questions is directly related to the "proposition at hand" What is you position on adoption? But you would not answer it. The other two are also relation as they have to do with gay rights. What are you hiding? You're just playing games here, and you call ME an ass hole?Thank you for confirming the fact that you do not have the intestinal fortitude to state your position on Lawrence indicating to me that you're against it. Do your gay friends know"?I have not stated how I feel about it at all.
I've pointed out that it can be overturned (and asshole CCJ's constant bleating about settled law only works in his favor (in his self-righteous mind). It works both ways.
That's all I have said.
If you want to dispute that...go ahead.
Why, in any universe would I feel obligated to explain my position on anything to you, except the proposition at hand ?
So we can thank you for somehow think you know why I will or won't.
You are typical fucking left wing asshole who struts around all superior....but who can't get it together enough with your fellow left wing assholes to NOT lose an election to one of the biggest morons to ever run for president.
What my gay friends know about how I feel isn't any of your motherfucking business.
1. I am not your pal.
2. I don't need you to give me a chance to do anything. I owe you shit.
3. My posiition has nothing to do with my claim that militants are fucking things up more than they are making them better for people.
4. I called you an asshole and I stand by it.
You made it clear that you view any activism as militancy . Fine but this thread is about adoption, and you will not clearly state your position on it. You don't want to have a serious discussion, you just want to hurl insults every chance you get. So fuck off
I didn't expect such a ready admission that they do not apply equally to everyone, but bravo for bravery.Yes...abortion laws too apply equally to everyone. Of course.....guys probably could care less since they don't get pregnant. Same can be said for post-menopausal women.Your quote about all laws applying equally to everyone.Let's see....jumping from bigamy to abortion laws. Connect the dots as to how you got there, please.How does that reconcile with abortion laws.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.
Pretty deep.
And I'm sure that Progressive is devastated over that.Look Pal, you accused me of misrepresenting you on your positions . I'll accept the possibility that I somehow did and I am giving you a chance to set it straight. One of the questions is directly related to the "proposition at hand" What is you position on adoption? But you would not answer it. The other two are also relation as they have to do with gay rights. What are you hiding? You're just playing games here, and you call ME an ass hole?Thank you for confirming the fact that you do not have the intestinal fortitude to state your position on Lawrence indicating to me that you're against it. Do your gay friends know"?I have not stated how I feel about it at all.
I've pointed out that it can be overturned (and asshole CCJ's constant bleating about settled law only works in his favor (in his self-righteous mind). It works both ways.
That's all I have said.
If you want to dispute that...go ahead.
Why, in any universe would I feel obligated to explain my position on anything to you, except the proposition at hand ?
So we can thank you for somehow think you know why I will or won't.
You are typical fucking left wing asshole who struts around all superior....but who can't get it together enough with your fellow left wing assholes to NOT lose an election to one of the biggest morons to ever run for president.
What my gay friends know about how I feel isn't any of your motherfucking business.
1. I am not your pal.
2. I don't need you to give me a chance to do anything. I owe you shit.
3. My posiition has nothing to do with my claim that militants are fucking things up more than they are making them better for people.
4. I called you an asshole and I stand by it.
Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Because there is no law in any state that allows some people to multiple marry, and some not. It continues to be equal treatment under the law. None of us can have legal multiple marriages.Please tell me how these questions are going to add clarrification to what I posted.
But here we go.....
Why can't I marry three or four people ?
Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
That's why they call them gay rights. They only apply to gays.I didn't expect such a ready admission that they do not apply equally to everyone, but bravo for bravery.Yes...abortion laws too apply equally to everyone. Of course.....guys probably could care less since they don't get pregnant. Same can be said for post-menopausal women.Your quote about all laws applying equally to everyone.Let's see....jumping from bigamy to abortion laws. Connect the dots as to how you got there, please.How does that reconcile with abortion laws.
Pretty deep.
Limits only apply to anyone who isn't gay....I guess.
That's why they call them gay rights. They only apply to gays.I didn't expect such a ready admission that they do not apply equally to everyone, but bravo for bravery.Yes...abortion laws too apply equally to everyone. Of course.....guys probably could care less since they don't get pregnant. Same can be said for post-menopausal women.Your quote about all laws applying equally to everyone.Let's see....jumping from bigamy to abortion laws. Connect the dots as to how you got there, please.
Pretty deep.
Limits only apply to anyone who isn't gay....I guess.
Do your gay friends know that you feel that way?Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Because there is no law in any state that allows some people to multiple marry, and some not. It continues to be equal treatment under the law. None of us can have legal multiple marriages.
Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
Do your gay friends know that you feel that way?Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Because there is no law in any state that allows some people to multiple marry, and some not. It continues to be equal treatment under the law. None of us can have legal multiple marriages.
Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)
Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage
On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:
The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”
We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Except uniquely, a gay marriage contract strips orphans from either a mother or father for life. .Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.
And that ^^ compelling legal argument is a secular one backed by reams of peer reviewed studies & surveys of youth wellness.
That's why they call them gay rights. They only apply to gays.I didn't expect such a ready admission that they do not apply equally to everyone, but bravo for bravery.Yes...abortion laws too apply equally to everyone. Of course.....guys probably could care less since they don't get pregnant. Same can be said for post-menopausal women.Your quote about all laws applying equally to everyone.Let's see....jumping from bigamy to abortion laws. Connect the dots as to how you got there, please.
Pretty deep.
Limits only apply to anyone who isn't gay....I guess.
Do your gay friends know that you feel that way?Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.Is there a law that prevents people from marrying more than one person ?
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
Yes I have heard this crap before. Gays already had equal rights prior to Obergefell because they could marry someone of the opposite sex. Bullshit!
Those brave Kansas lawmakers- working to ensure that the children abandoned by their own mother and father- are less likely to be adopted by anyone.
100,000 children a year in the United States await adoption.
On average children will wait years to be adopted.
Tens of thousands of children every year age out of the foster system without any parents at all to support them emotionally or financially.
These are kids that these brave Kansas lawmakers want to prevent having parents- of the 'wrong' sort.
Do your gay friends know that you feel that way?Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.Yes, the government is setting limits on marriage for everyone......You can't marry a child either....or a dog......None of us can. We are all treated equally under the law.Yes...bigamy is illegal....for everyone. So we are all treated equally under the law.
Right...the government is setting limits on marriage.
I don't need to take this any further. You know the schtick (or maybe you don't).
And a man can marry one woman. That equally applies to all men......
But no.....you want them to be able to marry a man to....you are saying the first law was wrong....even though it was equally applied.
Your argument is, at best, weak in this area.
Yes I have heard this crap before. Gays already had equal rights prior to Obergefell because they could marry someone of the opposite sex. Bullshit!
Can't help that you don't like it.
