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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
Your side was all for banning Civil Unions like that did in a lot of those marriage amendments from a decade ago like the one in my State:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It was your side that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time. They've only become an acceptable compromise not that marriage equality has become a reality.In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.
dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!
You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!
As opposed to your 'sample size' of zero........
LOL
Your deflections are noted and accepted as your surrender documents.One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.
so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today
I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.
Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.
first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.
So you are against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but you don't want to end them- well as consistent as anything you have ever posted.
And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats- with Republican support- with Southern opposition- every Democratic and Republican Senator from the South.
again, quote the language from the civil rights act where the words "gay marriage" are used.
Robert KKK Byrd was a democrat, so was Al Gore Sr. sorry but you cannot change that piece of history.
an amendment would prevent a reversal. thats all I am saying. I'm trying to help you.
an unnecessary event
Because you don't have the research to support your assertion.Well you are making lots of assumptions here.
dear why do you think they are assumptions rather than facts based on statistical research? Do you think before you write??
great another stupid liberal but this time using a sample size of one to establish the truth!!civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
Your side was all for banning Civil Unions like that did in a lot of those marriage amendments from a decade ago like the one in my State:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It was your side that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time. They've only become an acceptable compromise not that marriage equality has become a reality.In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.
dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!
You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!
As opposed to your 'sample size' of zero........
LOL
I don't know why you quoted me but I spent 20 years in the Navy,
I spent many of my early years in pursuit of "transactional" relationships or short-term commitments in the places I was stationed and in the ports of call we made through out the far east.
>>>>
You don't research well at all, so please don't chastise others who do it better than you.. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.
dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!
You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!
That is a mere assertion, just like all of yours.In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[
I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.
civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.
until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.
When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
Monogamous gay marriage is largely a myth.When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
We don't? Been in a lot have you?
Like the South was a moral, Christian country?Monogamous gay marriage is largely a myth.nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
We don't? Been in a lot have you?
yes, sadly, gay marriage may actually be anti-marriageMonogamous gay marriage is largely a myth.
I get it you've been in a lot of marriages so you know about marriage!!When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
We don't? Been in a lot have you?
Where's your stats?I get it you've been in a lot of marriages so you know about marriage!!nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
We don't? Been in a lot have you?
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
I am not gay- but as a man who has been married for over 20 years to my wife- I believe that they want the exact same thing my wife and I wanted when we got married- and I think there is no reason to treat them differently.
usually heteros want kids, commitment, longevity, monogamy while gays don't.
the male in nature has 100's of partners but marriage to a woman stops that. When you have 2 men in a relationship nature usually takes its course and men do what men do.
So in theory gay marriages will degrade the concept of marriage still further. The liberal's have been perfecting love, marriage, and family since the 1960's. They won't be sure they have succeeded until 95% of black kids and 80% of white kids are born into broken or never formed homes.
I get it you've been in a lot of marriages so you know about marriage!!nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
We don't? Been in a lot have you?
civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
Your side was all for banning Civil Unions like that did in a lot of those marriage amendments from a decade ago like the one in my State:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It was your side that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time. They've only become an acceptable compromise not that marriage equality has become a reality.In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[. I am friends with 6 other gay couples.
dear, please let me know the next time the pollsters predict the next president based on a sample size of 6!!
You want to believe so you lie to yourself. Those who followed Hitler Stalin and Mao were they same way. Like you they knew the truth in their hearts!!
As opposed to your 'sample size' of zero........
LOL
I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.
civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.
until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.
When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
Don't need your help there will never be a reversal. The constitution is fine as written.Keep fighting loudly and meanly, and you will drive nearly every millennial vote to the Dem candidate. If that happens, you will have 99% chance of never getting a shot at it. An amendment is an impossibility. A SC reversal a possibility but not a probability. But piss off the millennials, and your door is closed forever.No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.
Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.
thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.
for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.
an amendment would prevent a reversal. thats all I am saying. I'm trying to help you.
Mississippi is a state. It does not have a religion. More importantly, it's residents are American citizens and are entitled to the protections of the constitution.The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.
Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.
thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.
Or not.
Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.
We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.
well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.
Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.
Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?
Why not be tolerant and inclusive and let Mississippi exercise its long standing religious rights rather the subject it too the whims of a judge 1000 miles away.
.I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.
civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.
until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.
When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.
nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.
Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.
but why did gays want marriage anyway when gays don't generally behave in marriages the way straights do or even see it the same way?.
