Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[P@triot]

See that cartoon in the upper right corner? The one about Roe vs. Wade? Infanticide? Well....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”.

"BABIES (after they are BORN) ARE NOT PEOPLE AND HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO LIFE" Seawytch?!?

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ?After-Birth Abortions? as Newborns ?Are Not Persons? | TheBlaze.com

?Ethicists? justify after birth abortion ? Glenn Beck

Oops! Guess that slope is just a bit more slippery than you thought, uh stupid? No wonder you fell all the way down it and flat on your ignorant face.

It is an opinion, it is not happening. They are clearly wrong and what they are suggesting is immoral, unreasonable and unethical.

What was the "moral" position on deformed children in your Utopian 1770s?

Well so is abortion, but here we sit today and not only is that grisly act committed literally millions of times per year, but you actually support it.

(As I just stated to you in a previous post - as a libtard, steer clear of bringing up "morals" as libtard are at such an incredibly inferior position when it comes that that).

 

[P@triot]

I didn't say it was fake, I merely implied that those could hardly be considered reputable sources. The story is irrelevant since no one is committing infanticide as a result of abortion, no matter the opinions of a small group of people.

So you admit the story is true and accurate, but it's inconvenient to your narrative, so you focus on and attempt to discredit the sources? Yep, that's libtard tactic 101.

(By the way sweetie, Glenn Beck has proven to be the most reputable source in the media today - bar none. Why do you think the libtards hate him so much and try to discredit him as you just did?)

 

[Seawytch]

You claimed it was “liberals” destroying the Constitution. The Patriot Act was not a “liberal” bill, darlin’ so there is no contradiction.

Uh, the Patriot Act is a liberal bill sweetie... Who was more liberal than George W. Bush? He grew government considerably (a staple of the libtards), he pissed on the U.S. Constitution with the Patriot Act (another staple of the libtards), and he spent recklessly like a drunken sailor (the ultimate staple of the libtards). If GWB didn't have an "R" behind his name, you libtards would have been fellating this guy 24x7.

Proof of your insanity. Bush a liberal.

Why do you think the Tea Party came to life? Because 95% of the Republican Party are just Kennedy-era big government liberals (and sadly the Democrat Party has been hijacked by radical commuinists - JFK wouldn't even recognize his party today).

Even more proof of the far right crazy of your position. Republicans are liberal and Democrats are Communist.

Seriously, keep talking. You're helping gay equality with every word.

The SCOTUS (including conservative Justice Robers), whose job it is to decide these things, disagreed with you.

You know who else disagrees with me? Adolf Hitler. Rapists. Alcoholics. What's your point? Right is right and wrong is wrong. Just because the Supreme Court is stacked with radical libtards doesn't make their decisions right or ok.

Wow, you just keep wracking up the crazy don't you? And a Hitler reference to boot. Going for the trifecta of crazy!

I defy you to show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the Supreme Court the power to make laws or the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (you don't have to show me both - just one).

Article 3: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

What do you think "arising under this Constitution" means to you?

See - you've never read the U.S. Constitution sweetie (which is why you are so wrong on nearly every debate). But I have - thoroughly and many times. In fact, I'm so certain that you'll be unable to show me where the Supreme Court holds these powers that I pledge the following:

I've not only read it, I swore more than one oath to uphold it.

Uh, no it's not my dear. No where in the Constitution does it say government can "outlaw certain arms". In fact, quite the opposite it says arms "shall not be infringed". It leaves zero wiggle room for outlawing anything with regards to firearms.


Because the why - when arguing this part of the issue with libtards - is largely irrelevant. What matters is that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" - and it makes no stipulation as to the fact that some or any arms may be outlawed as you falsely claimed. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to make stuff up?

As part of a well regulated militia. Why do you always ignore that part? There are plenty of "arms" that you, as a civilian, cannot legally own. This is a fact so your "right" has already been infringed if you think it includes all "arms".

Ok - so ammend the U.S. Constitution to meet the need to "keep pace with the times". See, our founders were smarter than libtards and they built in a legal process to update the Constitution as applicable. They did not grant libtards the power to usurp the ultimate law of the land as they see fit.

Nobody is usurping the Constitution, but you said that only crazy liberals want to see the Constitution changed...and yet a founding father wrote about the necessity of changing it every once in a while as we progress as a nation.

No shit genius - neither is killing babies and yet you fully support that immoral criminal act. It's also completely immoral to give a child two moms or two dads and yet you support that immoral insanity. It's also completely immoral to not be in a monogamous relationship and you support that as well. I could pretty much go on all day.
Can I give you some friendly advice? As a liberal, the last thing you should ever bring up is "morals" as nothing defines a liberal more than their complete and total immorality (promiscuity, drugs, etc.).

Yes, I support a women's right to make choices about her own body, but don't confuse that with support for a abortion. Also, I don't believe that abortion kills a "baby" since a fetus is not a baby.

Morals are personal and you can't legislate morals, amigo. Your 1700s were far more immoral that we are as a society today. Child brides, rape without fear of reprisal, slavery, women as property. Yeah, upstanding morals there.

And yet you're the first to completley support muslims and sharia law on USMB

Please, provide hotlinks to the posts. Do you know anything about Islamic law and what it did for women? Did you know that Islamic law gave women the right to own property before our own secular laws did? Learn...

The Women of Islam

And as I've already stated above, the Dumbocrat Party has been completely hijacked by communists. The Communist Party U.S.A. is on record stating "we have a friend in the White House". 'Nough said sweetie...

Please, keep saying it...just makes you crazier and crazier.

While I wouldn't say "redefined" it - I think I get what you're saying and it's a very valid point. But how does actually redefining marriage help that problem? We need to educate people on what marriage really means (ie the seriousness of the pledge, the commitment to monogamy, etc.) - not further skew what marriage means when enough people are already having an issue comprehending it properly.

We aren't "redefining" marriage. We are getting equal access to a legal contract administered by the government. Your religion is free to define it any way it wants and discriminate against any couple it wants. The government I pay tax money to support, must not.

Amazing..! Simply amazing... I'm for traditional marriage (ie a doctor performing surgery) and against gay marriage (ie against someone not licensed as a physician performing surgery) - and for that you falsely accuse me as a "homophobe" and a host of other ugly terms. But you do the exact same thing and it's ok in your mind!!!

My analogy was good...yours falls on its face. Ours isn't a "fake" marriage as you want to continually paint it as. I'm actually legally married in the state of CA. The only difference, right now, between your marriage and mine is the Federal recognition of it. That's going to change in one month and there will be no difference at all between our legal marriage. Surgeons, both.

If you believe that marriage is not just between a man and a woman, then who the fuck are you to discriminate against people who want to engage in sexual acts and marry animals? At least I'm consistent - marriage is between a man and a woman and nothing else is acceptable. You want to open it up - but only to people like you. Fuck everybody else... Hypocrite!

You're not consistent, you're insane. Here is a word I want you to become familiar with before you get into trouble with animals or dead people... C-O-N-S-E-N-T.

Animals, dead people, children and inanimate objects cannot consent to a legal contract...which is what marriage is. Learn it...I'd hate to see you having to post from prison.

Uh, nothing You're so delusional with your wishes that you want to sit here and act like 4 years is the same thing as 144 years... People don't radically change their views in 4 years sweetie. In fact, most people don't change their views at all. It takes subsequent generations who disagree with them. I'm sorry, are you under the impression that an entire generation or two have gone by in 4 years?

Seriously, you really need to catch up with the times. Yes, things have progressed RAPIDLY in the last four years.

Look at the nationwide poll:

See that big jump in the last four years?

And in CA? Huge jump. In CA, gay marriage now enjoys over 60% support with only a puny 32% opposed.

To top it off, the SCOTUS will be ruling on Section 3 of DOMA...which is clearly unconstitutional.

Sweetie, you wouldn't know "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" if it shoved it's foot up your bottom. You've never read the U.S. Constitution and we both know it.

Well yes I would, darling, and I know that DOMA and Prop 8 have already been ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS will just be the icing on the cake.

I said I'm willing to bet siggys or avatars. Again for the record...I say:

Prop 8 gone and Sec 3 of DOMA gone.

You say?

I say wish in one hand, shit in the other... see which one fills up first

Chickenshit.

 

[P@triot]

Proof of your insanity. Bush a liberal.

I gave 3 specific examples of liberal policy under Bush. The fact that you can't cite ONE example that disputes my claim - and instead just make a personal attack - is glaring evidence that you know I'm right. But thanks for playing...

The fact that you can't dispute what I said and instead are only left with "proof of your insanity" says it all. Like I've already stated, your a weak-minded dumbocrat who was conditioned to hate Bush. His every policy was liberal - and if he had a "D" behind his name, you would have been on your knees on USMB the past 8 years fellating this guy and referring to him as a God.

Even more proof of the far right crazy of your position. Republicans are liberal and Democrats are Communist.

I've provided evidence. Actual policies (Bush's), actual quotes (from the Communist Party U.S.A.), actual links. All you've done is provide your very uninformed, very uneducated opinion. 'Nough said sweetie...

Article 3: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

What do you think "arising under this Constitution" means to you?

Hands down the dumbest comment you've ever made (and that's saying a lot). Apparently you're reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired - so please allow me to explain this to you.

"Arising under this Constitution" means "any laws, disputes, issues, etc." as they apply to the United State Constitution. It does not mean "the Supreme Court is hereby authorized to change, alter, or amend the Constitution as they see fit".

My God, you're so arrogant, rather than admit you are wrong on something you reach further and further until you're completely off the reservation

I've not only read it, I swore more than one oath to uphold it.

No you haven't - don't lie. It's so unbecoming... I have no doubt you swore an oath to uphold it, but you did so without reading it (and the oath does NOT include the Constitution itself). You have NEVER read the U.S. Constitution. I can tell just by talking to you.

As part of a well regulated militia. Why do you always ignore that part? There are plenty of "arms" that you, as a civilian, cannot legally own. This is a fact so your "right" has already been infringed if you think it includes all "arms".[/QUOTE]

Well, for once, you did get one thing correct. Our rights have already been infringed. There are not any arms that we are not Constitutionally entitled to own. None. Not a tank. Not an RPG. Not a grenade. It's just that simple. And you're not even capable of showing where that exists (which speaks volumes).

As far as your "well regulated militia" desperate argument - it's completely nonsensical. It does NOT say "you may not own weapons unless you are a part of a militia"

Finally - it's amazing how libtards are too stupid to understand that even if that were the case (ie you can't have weapons unless you're part of a militia), all we would have to do is declare ourselves part of our own militia and each and every one of us could own anything we want

Really shows how unhinged you on the left are, doesn't it?

Nobody is usurping the Constitution, but you said that only crazy liberals want to see the Constitution changed...and yet a founding father wrote about the necessity of changing it every once in a while as we progress as a nation.

So first you say that Bush usurped the Constitution with the Patriot Act (which was accurate), and then you say "nobody is usurping the Constitution"

Perhaps you may want to either A.) be more consistent in your arguments or B.) remember what you said from one post to the next so you don't sound like a fool

Not only did Bush usurp it, but Obama has as well with Obamacare. They federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase anything. Period. It doesn't exist. You cannot find that power ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. I've asked you to provide it and you can't. All you keep saying is "the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS" as if they have the power to grant the federal government power

but you said that only crazy liberals want to see the Constitution changed...and yet a founding father wrote about the necessity of changing it every once in a while as we progress as a nation.

No I didn't. I've never said "only crazy liberals want to amend the Constitution". All I said was that IF you want to change the Constitution, to it legally through the amendment process. But since libtards (such as Bush) or Marxists (such as Obama) can't get the votes for their radical agenda, they skip the amendment process and then just ignore the Constitution.

Yes, I support a women's right to make choices about her own body, but don't confuse that with support for a abortion. Also, I don't believe that abortion kills a "baby" since a fetus is not a baby.

You're on a roll today dear! You support a "woman's right to choose" but you don't support abortion?

You're so weak minded and thoroughly brainwashed, apparently you don't even realize "a woman's right to choose" is libtard code for ABORTION!

Morals are personal and you can't legislate morals, amigo.

So someone who is at peace with murder has a right to murder? In your own words, who are you to outlaw murder?

Your 1700s were far more immoral that we are as a society today. Child brides, rape without fear of reprisal, slavery, women as property. Yeah, upstanding morals there.

That's so stupid, it defies logic. Today we have sex slavery, abortion, child molestation, narcotics, rape without fear of reprisal (OWS demanded to their fellow women not to report rapes for the "cause") domestic violence, and promiscuity (AIDS didn't exist back then sweetie).

Please, provide hotlinks to the posts. Do you know anything about Islamic law and what it did for women? Did you know that Islamic law gave women the right to own property before our own secular laws did? Learn...

The Women of Islam

Did you know that Sharia Law requires women to walk behind their man like a dog, cover their face like they are property, and forbids them from going out in public without their husband? But hey, keep telling yourself that islam is making great strides for women's lib....

We aren't "redefining" marriage. We are getting equal access to a legal contract administered by the government. Your religion is free to define it any way it wants and discriminate against any couple it wants. The government I pay tax money to support, must not.

First of all, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's an undeniable FACT. If you change that, you have redefined it genius.

Second, marriage is not a right. There is no right to get married. It doesn't exist (again, you would know this if you had ever actually read the U.S. Constitution). Therefor, the government "you pay taxes to support" does not have to do shit in recognizing what you want when it comes to marriage.

This is so typical of you libtards - actual rights (such as the 2nd Amendment) you people try to deny and/or attach conditions... while things that are NOT rights (such as healthcare, marriage, etc.), you libtards try to make the case that they are actual rights

My analogy was good...yours falls on its face.

I used YOUR exact same analogy...

Ours isn't a "fake" marriage as you want to continually paint it as. I'm actually legally married in the state of CA.

Do you see what a disgusting bigot you are? What's "fake" about the love a person has for their animal? Who are you to judge? Especially when you yourself has anything but a "normal". The hypocrisy of your average libtard is truly appalling.

The only difference, right now, between your marriage and mine is the Federal recognition of it. That's going to change in one month and there will be no difference at all between our legal marriage. Surgeons, both.

And still you don't realize how irrational you sound. Both are "surgeons" only because someone legalized your gay marriage. And if someone legalizes marriage between man and animal, then they too will be "surgeons" in the analogy. As it stands now, marriage is ILLEGAL - and hence gay marriage is NOT a "surgeon" (and hence my analogy makes a HELL of a lot more sense than yours).

You're not consistent, you're insane. Here is a word I want you to become familiar with before you get into trouble with animals or dead people... C-O-N-S-E-N-T.

Consent? Since when does that mean ANYTHING to you? I consent to America owning military-grade weapons in accordance with our Constitutional rights but you don't give a shit about that. Once again the inconsistent hypocrisy comes through...

Animals, dead people, children and inanimate objects cannot consent to a legal contract...which is what marriage is. Learn it...I'd hate to see you having to post from prison.

At one time, abortion and gay marriage were completely illegal. All we have to do is change the law and viola - an animal can suddenly "consent" to a marriage. Sad what hateful bigot you are - especially when you yourself engage in a very unusual form of love.

Seriously, you really need to catch up with the times. Yes, things have progressed RAPIDLY in the last four years.

Yeah, I'm stuck waaaaaaay back in.... 2009? A whopping 4 years ago? Man, remember the type of vehicles we had back then? Oh yeah, the same one's we are driving today.

 

[P@triot]

Morals are personal and you can't legislate morals, amigo. Your 1700s were far more immoral that we are as a society today. Child brides, rape without fear of reprisal, slavery, women as property. Yeah, upstanding morals there.

Um, you were saying about today's "morality". This is despicable and pathetic. You would NEVER have seen a bunch of idiots dancing around a "golden calf" in the 1700's: Is That Occupy Portland Dancing Around a Golden Calf on May Day? | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[bodecea]

Morals are personal and you can't legislate morals, amigo. Your 1700s were far more immoral that we are as a society today. Child brides, rape without fear of reprisal, slavery, women as property. Yeah, upstanding morals there.

Um, you were saying about today's "morality". This is despicable and pathetic. You would NEVER have seen a bunch of idiots dancing around a "golden calf" in the 1700's: Is That Occupy Portland Dancing Around a Golden Calf on May Day? | Video | TheBlaze.com

How is that immoral?

 

[ima]

So I can get a priest to marry my dogs, but I myself, being gay, can't marry?

 

[Seawytch]

I gave 3 specific examples of liberal policy under Bush. The fact that you can't cite ONE example that disputes my claim - and instead just make a personal attack - is glaring evidence that you know I'm right. But thanks for playing...

You can keep saying it over and over like the insane person you are, but it doesn't make it any more true. Bush was not a liberal. He was a conservative Republican that did pretty much the same thing every Republican does. Bush wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Not very liberal. Taking us into an unnecessary war with a country that didn't attack us? Not liberal. Cutting taxes AND spending...not liberal or even Democrat.

Those on the FAR right that claim Bush was a "liberal" are as certifiably insane as those on the far left that say there is no daylight between Bush and Obama. You're crazy, they're crazy.

The fact that you can't dispute what I said and instead are only left with "proof of your insanity" says it all. Like I've already stated, your a weak-minded dumbocrat who was conditioned to hate Bush. His every policy was liberal - and if he had a "D" behind his name, you would have been on your knees on USMB the past 8 years fellating this guy and referring to him as a God.

I didn't have to be conditioned to be opposed to the policies of the Bush administration. He made me hate his policies all on my own. Not him, just his policies.

I've provided evidence. Actual policies (Bush's), actual quotes (from the Communist Party U.S.A.), actual links. All you've done is provide your very uninformed, very uneducated opinion. 'Nough said sweetie...

You proved nothing. Bush wasn't a liberal and Democrats are not Communist. Of course, Obama isn't a liberal either, he's a centrist Democrat. I'm certain that I could find much in the creed of the KKK that you would agree with or that fits your professed ideology to a "T". Does that mean all far right crazy "conservatives" are white supremacists?

Arising under this Constitution" means "any laws, disputes, issues, etc." as they apply to the United State Constitution. It does not mean "the Supreme Court is hereby authorized to change, alter, or amend the Constitution as they see fit".

Since the SCOUTS isn't changing or creating laws, what is the point you are trying so badly to make?

Just out of curiosity, how many times are you going to call me stupid and then whine & snivel about how I'm attacking you for calling you crazy?

No you haven't - don't lie. It's so unbecoming... I have no doubt you swore an oath to uphold it, but you did so without reading it (and the oath does NOT include the Constitution itself). You have NEVER read the U.S. Constitution. I can tell just by talking to you.

Of course I have. I have not only read it, I keep a copy of both the US and state Constitutions on my devices and at my desk. There is nothing more arrogant that claiming you know something about someone you've never met and only had a few exchanges on an anonymous internet. If that's not the epitome of arrogance, I don't know what is.

Well, for once, you did get one thing correct. Our rights have already been infringed. There are not any arms that we are not Constitutionally entitled to own. None. Not a tank. Not an RPG. Not a grenade. It's just that simple. And you're not even capable of showing where that exists (which speaks volumes).

No they haven't been infringed, I was being factious. The SCOTUS has already said that restrictions on some "arms" is perfectly Constitutional.

As far as your "well regulated militia" desperate argument - it's completely nonsensical. It does NOT say "you may not own weapons unless you are a part of a militia"

And you claim you've read it. The 2nd is an Amendment, meaning not part of the original Constitution. It wasn't put in until 1791. So, what provision of the Constitution was it amending? What did the states find objectionable in the original Constitution?

Finally - it's amazing how libtards are too stupid to understand that even if that were the case (ie you can't have weapons unless you're part of a militia), all we would have to do is declare ourselves part of our own militia and each and every one of us could own anything we want

No you couldn't. There are very specific rules and regulations for a militia.

Militia Act 1792

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Oops...the black guy will be in charge of your Militia.

So first you say that Bush usurped the Constitution with the Patriot Act (which was accurate), and then you say "nobody is usurping the Constitution

I didn't say he did I said "except maybe the Patriot Act". Has it been challenged? What did the SCOTUS have to say?

Not only did Bush usurp it, but Obama has as well with Obamacare. They federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase anything. Period. It doesn't exist. You cannot find that power ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. I've asked you to provide it and you can't. All you keep saying is "the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS" as if they have the power to grant the federal government power

You might want to check your history, Skippy. You're missing some HUGE chunks.

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.​

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

And you aren't forced to buy insurance. You're free not to. You just get taxed if you don't which is well within Congressional powers.

]You're on a roll today dear! You support a "woman's right to choose" but you don't support abortion?

You're so weak minded and thoroughly brainwashed, apparently you don't even realize "a woman's right to choose" is libtard code for ABORTION!

That's correct. They aren't diverging positions. As stated, I want to put an end to all abortions, I just want it done a different way than you do and believe that no one has a right to tell a women what she can and cannot do with her own body.

That's so stupid, it defies logic. Today we have sex slavery, abortion, child molestation, narcotics, rape without fear of reprisal (OWS demanded to their fellow women not to report rapes for the "cause") domestic violence, and promiscuity (AIDS didn't exist back then sweetie).

Oh look, there's "stupid" again from the insane person coupled with pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I believe that because of our civil rights advancements we are far more moral today than the 1700s and your unhinged rantings about some protest group isn't going to change that.

Did you know that Sharia Law requires women to walk behind their man like a dog, cover their face like they are property, and forbids them from going out in public without their husband? But hey, keep telling yourself that islam is making great strides for women's lib....

Did you read the article I posted AT ALL? I would have to guess "no" based on your response.

First of all, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's an undeniable FACT. If you change that, you have redefined it genius.

Then start the crying because marriage hasn't been only between a man and a women since...well, a hell of a long time, not just in recent years. Today it most certainly isn't only between a man and a woman or haven't you been paying attention? Gays can be legally married in 10 states (soon to be 11 with CA, 12 with DE) and over a dozen countries. Quite a few more states recognize the legal marriage of gays and another handful has civil unions. This is the undeniable fact, not your religious opinions on marriage. If allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice "redefines" marriage, too late sucka!

Second, marriage is not a right. There is no right to get married. It doesn't exist (again, you would know this if you had ever actually read the U.S. Constitution). Therefor, the government "you pay taxes to support" does not have to do shit in recognizing what you want when it comes to marriage.

You think that the only rights we have are specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Oh the irony of you repeatedly calling me stupid.

The right to marry DOES exist. The Supreme Court ruled marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. I can cite cases for you to ignore:

Loving v Virginia: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Zablocki v Redhail: The "right to marry" is mentioned no less than 10 times in this case

Turner v Safley: We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry

So yes, there is a "right to marry" in this country...with restrictions. The deal with the "restrictions" is that you must use a reasonable person standard and provide an overriding harm in allowing the marriage. With gays and lesbians, you can't which is why you're losing in court just like other restrictions on marriage have. Learn from history, my friend, learn.

This is so typical of you libtards - actual rights (such as the 2nd Amendment) you people try to deny and/or attach conditions... while things that are NOT rights (such as healthcare, marriage, etc.), you libtards try to make the case that they are actual rights

No right is absolute. Every "right" has it's restrictions. There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

Do you see what a disgusting bigot you are? What's "fake" about the love a person has for their animal? Who are you to judge? Especially when you yourself has anything but a "normal". The hypocrisy of your average libtard is truly appalling.

And still you don't realize how irrational you sound. Both are "surgeons" only because someone legalized your gay marriage. And if someone legalizes marriage between man and animal, then they too will be "surgeons" in the analogy. As it stands now, marriage is ILLEGAL - and hence gay marriage is NOT a "surgeon[/B]" (and hence my analogy makes a HELL of a lot more sense than yours).

What are you talking about? I was referring to your piss poor analogy that you're is a surgeon marriage and mine is a layman or "fake" marriage. You tried to use the analogy I used well, and fucked it up beyond recognition.

Is your marriage the exact same as a man who is in love with his sheep? Male Pig fuckers usually pick the females...does that make it "normal".

Seriously dude, you're trying to equate having sex with an animal that cannot consent to it with consenting adult same sex partners wanting to love, honor, cherish and care for each other the rest of their lives? That's not sane.

Consent? Since when does that mean ANYTHING to you? I consent to America owning military-grade weapons in accordance with our Constitutional rights but you don't give a shit about that. Once again the inconsistent hypocrisy comes through...

Somebody's getting unhinged and can't stay on topic. Animals, children, dead people and inanimate objects can't consent to a legal contract, which is what marriage is.

At one time, abortion and gay marriage were completely illegal. All we have to do is change the law and viola - an animal can suddenly "consent" to a marriage. Sad what hateful bigot you are - especially when you yourself engage in a very unusual form of love.

Good luck getting that passed. You've heard of PETA right?

Honestly, you are so crazy that this is nothing but fun.

Yeah, I'm stuck waaaaaaay back in.... 2009? A whopping 4 years ago? Man, remember the type of vehicles we had back then? Oh yeah, the same one's we are driving today.

I showed you actual proof that society's opinion has changed drastically in the last four years. Just because you can't evolve doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't doing it without you.

So, you want to bet me or not, chickenshit? I will bet you siggys or avatars that when the SCOTUS rules in June, gay marriage will be legal in CA and Section 3 of DOMA will be struck down. You must agree with me since you won't bet.

 

[P@triot]

You can keep saying it over and over like the insane person you are, but it doesn't make it any more true. Bush was not a liberal. He was a conservative Republican

Uh, no he wasn't... like most Republican's, he was a liberal Republican. He grew the federal government (fact), he usurped the U.S. Constitution (fact), he stripped American citizens of their rights (fact), and he spent recklessly (fact). He could not have been more liberal and you would worship him had he had a "D" behind his name.

Bush wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Not very liberal. Taking us into an unnecessary war with a country that didn't attack us? Not liberal. Cutting taxes AND spending...not liberal or even Democrat.

Really? That's funny, I seem to recall JFK authorizing the Bay of Pigs. In fact, JFK was so desperate to "take us into an unnecessary war" with Cuba, he asked the Joint Chiefs to draw up plans for how to get us into a war with Cuba. One of their plans included attacking U.S. cities and framing Cuba for it. Look up a little something called "Operation Northwoods" (don't worry, I wouldn't expect a liberal to know anything about this).

Oh, and lets not forget Bill Clinton taking us into Somalia! Some real U.S. "interests" there in that giant cluster-fuck, uh? Yeah... don't let those pesky little facts get in the way of your ideology though, ok?

Since the SCOUTS isn't changing or creating laws, what is the point you are trying so badly to make?

Wow... I mean - seriously - wow. I've challenged you on several occasions now to cite where in the U.S. Constitution something was legal and you can't. So you're response has been "well the Supreme Court said it was ok". I've merely brought it to your attention time and time again that the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch and laws (ie, whether something is legal or not) are made by the legislative branch.

For instance, you said "the Supreme Court says the federal government does have the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service". So you are the one specifically stating that the Supreme Court is changing and/or creating laws. All I've done is point out how that violates Constitutional law.

Just out of curiosity, how many times are you going to call me stupid and then whine & snivel about how I'm attacking you for calling you crazy?

I'm not "whinning" or "sniveling" about what you call me. I'm pointing out that when I put facts in front of you, you just yell an insult and then run like hell (rather than admitting, like a big girl, that you were wrong).

And you claim you've read it. The 2nd is an Amendment, meaning not part of the original Constitution. It wasn't put in until 1791. So, what provision of the Constitution was it amending? What did the states find objectionable in the original Constitution?

Well, this is a long history lesson which I don't have time to thoroughly teach right now. But in a nut shell, the founders were adament that the federal government had ZERO authority beyond the enumerated powers specifically cited in the U.S. Constitution. ZERO. NONE. To further ensure the federal government was the weakest branch of government, they added the Bill of Rights (in essence, they redundantly cited that the federal government was supposed to be at the mercy of the states, the counties, and the people to protect against socialists just like you). Want some proof? Read the Federalist Papers. Here is quick snippet for you. From Federalist 84 by Alexander Hamilton:

Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Federalist No. 84 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How astounding is it that over 200+ years ago, these brilliant founders saw people like you coming? And they did their best to protect America from you unhinged socialists who think you can rewrite the Constitution, limit Constitutional rights, and interpret for yourselves that if the Supreme Court says something, it becomes the ultimate law of the land and supersedes the Constitution.

I didn't say he did I said "except maybe the Patriot Act". Has it been challenged? What did the SCOTUS have to say?

So if the Supreme Court didn't tell you something, you're unable to determine for yourself?

And you aren't forced to buy insurance. You're free not to. You just get taxed if you don't which is well within Congressional powers.

Wait a second - I thought this wasn't a tax? That was Obama's official position for the first 4 years he tried to get it approved. It wasn't until it went before the Supreme Court that he suddenly changed his narrative and declared it a "tax" and tried to make the case that that is what made it legal since the federal government has the power to create and impose taxes.

Shows just what a lying piece of shit Obama is - doesn't it? By the way, if I'm penalized for not doing something, then I am in fact forced to do it. You can't dance all you want sweetie - reality is reality.

You think that the only rights we have are specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Oh the irony of you repeatedly calling me stupid.

Um, yes stupid, that's where your rights are listed If they aren't listed there, you don't have them (note - there is a HUGE difference between rights and freedoms). You have the freedom to go to the beach - you do NOT have the right to go to the beach. Hence, that freedom can be impeded. A right cannot be impeded (such as my right to own and bear any arms that I want).

The right to marry DOES exist. The Supreme Court ruled marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. I can cite cases for you to ignore

And here we go again! After stating above that the Supreme Court is not changing or adding laws, you turn around and cite Supreme Court rulings adding rights. You libtards contradict yourselves in the same post. It's hilarious...

So, you want to bet me or not, chickenshit? I will bet you siggys or avatars that when the SCOTUS rules in June, gay marriage will be legal in CA and Section 3 of DOMA will be struck down. You must agree with me since you won't bet.

Why would I bet you? I mean, after all, you are Nostradamus. You can see into the future!

I'll say it again - wish in one hand, shit in the other. Let me know which one fills up first.

 

[P@triot]

Oh please. McCarthy saw communists around every corner. He was unhinged. (Rather like Bachman, West and Cruz today)

Are you ready to put on your big girl pants now and accept reality? Clearly, you are the one who is unhinged - not McCarthy. You're the one who is closing your eyes as tight as you can and trying to deny that the sun is hot, the water is wet, and the Earth is round....

Media fail on May Day: What does the hammer & sickle mean? ? Glenn Beck

 

[JoeB131]

So in Poodle's world, Bush was a liberal and I'm a communist....

Right.

Okay, man, just too funny. YOu are like a parody of a right winger they came up with at Daily Kos, aren't you?

 

[Seawytch]

You can keep saying it over and over like the insane person you are, but it doesn't make it any more true. Bush was not a liberal. He was a conservative Republican

Uh, no he wasn't... like most Republican's, he was a liberal Republican. He grew the federal government (fact), he usurped the U.S. Constitution (fact), he stripped American citizens of their rights (fact), and he spent recklessly (fact). He could not have been more liberal and you would worship him had he had a "D" behind his name.

You realize you're just proving to the rest of us just how far right nutty you are.

Voteview has mapped out estimated positions of U.S. presidents in the post-WWII era. These values are derived from a number of “presidential support” votes where the commander in chief had to favor a particular outcome.

Bush was not only Conservative, but the most Conservative in history.

Bush wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Not very liberal. Taking us into an unnecessary war with a country that didn't attack us? Not liberal. Cutting taxes AND spending...not liberal or even Democrat.

Really? That's funny, I seem to recall JFK authorizing the Bay of Pigs. In fact, JFK was so desperate to "take us into an unnecessary war" with Cuba, he asked the Joint Chiefs to draw up plans for how to get us into a war with Cuba. One of their plans included attacking U.S. cities and framing Cuba for it. Look up a little something called "Operation Northwoods" (don't worry, I wouldn't expect a liberal to know anything about this).

It wasn't Kennedy's plan, idiot, it was Eisenhower's.

Oh, and lets not forget Bill Clinton taking us into Somalia! Some real U.S. "interests" there in that giant cluster-fuck, uh? Yeah... don't let those pesky little facts get in the way of your ideology though, ok?

There you go again...missing huge chunks. Bush sent troops to Somalia weeks before Clinton took office. Again, not his idea.

Wow... I mean - seriously - wow. I've challenged you on several occasions now to cite where in the U.S. Constitution something was legal and you can't. So you're response has been "well the Supreme Court said it was ok". I've merely brought it to your attention time and time again that the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch and laws (ie, whether something is legal or not) are made by the legislative branch.

For instance, you said "the Supreme Court says the federal government does have the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service". So you are the one specifically stating that the Supreme Court is changing and/or creating laws. All I've done is point out how that violates Constitutional law.

The Supreme Court interprets the laws, it does not create them. It interprets what rights the Constitution grants, whether expressly laid out or not. I can't believe I have to tell a grown man in the United States this, but considering it's one that's certifiably insane, I guess it's to be expected.

I'm not "whinning" or "sniveling" about what you call me. I'm pointing out that when I put facts in front of you, you just yell an insult and then run like hell (rather than admitting, like a big girl, that you were wrong).

Run? When have I run? I think I've responded to each one of your increasingly insane posts no matter how many times you've called me stupid. Shall we see which one came first, crazy or stupid? Oh, looks like "unhinged" came first...from you, followed by stupid then I called you crazy. All without ever running away. Ironical you accuse me of "running away", but you're afraid to take a little bet...even though you claim I'm "delusional". Ah, the irony!

How astounding is it that over 200+ years ago, these brilliant founders saw people like you coming? And they did their best to protect America from you unhinged socialists who think you can rewrite the Constitution, limit Constitutional rights, and interpret for yourselves that if the Supreme Court says something, it becomes the ultimate law of the land and supersedes the Constitution.

How are "unhinged socialists" (Honestly, are you serious with this shit or just putting on an act for the internet) rewriting the Constitution exactly?

The 2nd Amendment was put in because Washington didn't want a standing Army. We have one, the biggest in the world.

The SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amendment as granting individual gun ownership rights, despite how James Madison, (the man that devised the Amendment) set up the militias at the time. (they were well regulated and the guns registered )

The 2nd Amendment you Don't Know

Wait a second - I thought this wasn't a tax? That was Obama's official position for the first 4 years he tried to get it approved. It wasn't until it went before the Supreme Court that he suddenly changed his narrative and declared it a "tax" and tried to make the case that that is what made it legal since the federal government has the power to create and impose taxes.

That's how the SCOTUS interpreted it, as a tax. Who am I to disagree? Why did you ignore this?

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

Shows just what a lying piece of shit Obama is - doesn't it? By the way, if I'm penalized for not doing something, then I am in fact forced to do it. You can't dance all you want sweetie - reality is reality.

No, it shows he interpreted the Affordable Care Act differently than the SCOTUS. Meh. It was Constitutional and within Congressional power either way IMO.

No, you aren't forced. You have the choice not to have health insurance. What you don't have anymore is the choice of letting the rest of us pay for you.

Um, yes stupid, that's where your rights are listed If they aren't listed there, you don't have them (note - there is a HUGE difference between rights and freedoms). You have the freedom to go to the beach - you do NOT have the right to go to the beach. Hence, that freedom can be impeded. A right cannot be impeded (such as my right to own and bear any arms that I want).

Wow, you really DO believe that. Gosh you're fun. Do you express these opinions to actual people in the real world or just on the anonymous internet?

What Are Fundamental Rights?

No right is absolute...as already pointed out.

And here we go again! After stating above that the Supreme Court is not changing or adding laws, you turn around and cite Supreme Court rulings adding rights. You libtards contradict yourselves in the same post. It's hilarious...

Is this a language barrier thing? Do you not know the difference between create and interpret? Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary

Why would I bet you? I mean, after all, you are Nostradamus. You can see into the future!

Why wouldn't you bet? You're the one that has called me delusional for my claim. You should think your win is a sure thing. Obviously you're the one that's all bluster, buster.

 

[Seawytch]

So in Poodle's world, Bush was a liberal and I'm a communist....

Right.

Okay, man, just too funny. YOu are like a parody of a right winger they came up with at Daily Kos, aren't you?

That's what I was thinking. He is so much a caricature, it's Poe's law incarnate. Of course, there's a lot of that around here...so crazy, you're sure it's gotta be fake. I mean, really, who sees Joseph McCarthy as a hero?

 

[P@triot]

So in Poodle's world, Bush was a liberal and I'm a communist....

Right.

Okay, man, just too funny. YOu are like a parody of a right winger they came up with at Daily Kos, aren't you?

That's what I was thinking. He is so much a caricature, it's Poe's law incarnate. Of course, there's a lot of that around here...so crazy, you're sure it's gotta be fake. I mean, really, who sees Joseph McCarthy as a hero?

Except that JoeB. flat out admitted to being a communist in another thread and it is STILL up there for everybody to see....

Sorry, you can run to him for "comfort" on this ass-kicking you are taking, but he's a self-admitted communist who openly bashes captialism 24x7 (wonder if he'll deny that as well? ).

 

[P@triot]

You realize you're just proving to the rest of us just how far right nutty you are.

Bush was not only Conservative, but the most Conservative in history.

Uh, no he wasn't... like most Republican's, he was a liberal Republican. He grew the federal government (fact), he usurped the U.S. Constitution (fact), he stripped American citizens of their rights (fact), and he spent recklessly (fact). He could not have been more liberal and you would worship him had he had a "D" behind his name.

No amount of your dancing and ducking the issue will change the FACTS - so I will just continue posting them. Now, which one of these big ticket items are "conservative"? Exactly...

 

[P@triot]

It wasn't Kennedy's plan, idiot, it was Eisenhower's.

Kennedy officiallly took office at noon on January 20, 1961.

The Opertaions Northwoods memo is dated March 13, 1962:

And the Bay of Pigs operation was April 17, 1961



You are a mountain of misinformation....

 

[P@triot]

There you go again...missing huge chunks. Bush sent troops to Somalia weeks before Clinton took office. Again, not his idea.

Man... you are giving me some monster laughs today! I can't thank you enough.



First of all, the actual cluster-fuck I was referring to (commonly known as "Black Hawk Down") occurred on October 3, 1993. Remind me again who was president on that day?

Second - "not his idea"? No really - "not his idea"? Did you really just give the excuse "not his idea"?

Holy hell, I've got tears in my eyes and my stomach is hurting from laughing at your desperate attempt to protect all things liberal. So Clinton couldn't order the troops home? Once Bush "sent" them, he had no choice but leave them and declare "hey, it wasn't my idea"?

My God you are a tool.....

 

[JoeB131]

So in Poodle's world, Bush was a liberal and I'm a communist....

Right.

Okay, man, just too funny. YOu are like a parody of a right winger they came up with at Daily Kos, aren't you?

That's what I was thinking. He is so much a caricature, it's Poe's law incarnate. Of course, there's a lot of that around here...so crazy, you're sure it's gotta be fake. I mean, really, who sees Joseph McCarthy as a hero?

Except that JoeB. flat out admitted to being a communist in another thread and it is STILL up there for everybody to see....

Sorry, you can run to him for "comfort" on this ass-kicking you are taking, but he's a self-admitted communist who openly bashes captialism 24x7 (wonder if he'll deny that as well? ).

Capitalism and Communism aren't the only choices on the menu, you understand this, right?

 

[P@triot]

Run? When have I run? I think I've responded to each one of your increasingly insane posts no matter how many times you've called me stupid

You're so insane, I have to explain this to you. When I post facts, and your only response to that fact is "you're an idiot" and you move on to the next point, you are running from the fact.

 

[P@triot]

That's how the SCOTUS interpreted it, as a tax. Who am I to disagree? Why did you ignore this?

You are either the most ignorant, misinformed moron on USMB or you are a liar. Please decide which it is and let the rest of us know.

It was NOT the Supreme Court who decided it was a "tax". It was the Obama Administration that presented their case to the Supreme Court as a tax. And that was after screaming for nearly 4 years that it was not a tax. I know you hate facts (because they prove you are on the wrong side of them), but these are the undeniable, indisputable FACTS.

You are simply incapable of acknowledging any lie, scandal, mistake, or bad policy by a liberal. For a self-described "lesbian", you sure love sucking Barack Obama off for all you are worth.