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.
chicken's aren't sentient beings capable of consent.
though in your case, i can see where you might confuse their level of intelligence with your own.
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
It is the logical extension of marriage' rights.'
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.
you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.
if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.
the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.
That did not occur after Loving v. Virginia.
You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.
you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.
if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.
the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.
chicken's aren't sentient beings capable of consent.
though in your case, i can see where you might confuse their level of intelligence with your own.
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?
You do realize that case was about race? It has nothing to do with same sex. When a case is presented dealing with same sex you will have something to use to reference.
you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.
if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.
the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.
You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.
In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.you understand that to apply precedent, they have to extrapolate and compare. yes, Loving was about race. but that wasn't the point... the point of Loving was that marriage is a fundamental right... something the Supreme Court has probably reiterated a dozen times. therefore, since it is a fundamental right, it has to be applied equally. when it is infringed upon, as in prohibiting one class of consenting adults from getting married while allowing other classes of consenting adults to get married, then there has to be a substantial governmental interest in the prohibition and the prohibition has to be narrowly drawn to meet only that particular interest. in this case, you might say that preserving marriage as an institution is the governmental interest, but that would be mitigated against by laws allowing divorces.
if you say it's about procreation, that would also be incorrect since there is no statute anywhere in the country limiting marriage to people who are capable of reproduction or are of reproductive age.
the bible doesn't count as a substantial governmental interest.
You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.
once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.
just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
THAT is the point of Loving.
There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.You cannot apply a case of race as a reference to show proof that same sex marriage is it's equal. Because when that case was heard the homosexual act was illegal in all states if I am correct in the time frame of the case.
Race and same sex are two totally different issues.
once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.
just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
THAT is the point of Loving.
There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
What obama said is that Personally he supports gay marriage but that the decision should be left up to the states to decide..
Which of course is what I've been saying all along.. STATES RIGHTS..
In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.once again, because you don't like the subject, you're missing the point .. it was not just about race. it was about marriage being a fundamental right (read that sentence over a few times) that can't be denied because of a discriminatory purpose.
just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
THAT is the point of Loving.
There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.just because you don't like a group of people, doesn't mean you can deny them a fundamental right.
Homosexuality is now legal in all states and Homosexuals are a protected class against discrimination. The legal precedent of Loving applies to all marriage, not just those you approve of
In 1967 was the act of homosexual illegal or legal in all states? If it was illegal then this case will not fit into your argument. You would have to have another case which consisted of same sex to be able to use as a case reference.
There is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.
Homosexuality is now legal in all states and Homosexuals are a protected class against discrimination. The legal precedent of Loving applies to all marriage, not just those you approve of
Again some are using a case that was about race to fit their argument about same sex marriage. When this case was heard homosexual acts were illegal and would not fit in the argument for same sex marriage.
Why do these threads sways devolve into sex with animals discussions?
Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?
I have no problem with polygamy. If it is a mutual relationship between consenting adults, it is none of my business
Because you insist on ignoring the other failures of your marriage is a 'human right' argument when it comes to incest and polygamy?
I have no problem with polygamy. If it is a mutual relationship between consenting adults, it is none of my business
Especially if Obama's Dad practiced it.
Problem is, the left never avoids an chance to throw it in our face when they're talking down the MORMONS.