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.
You're not around the corner, you're here.No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.
I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.
This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.
Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter
Freakshow just around the corner
How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.
Once again proving your delusion
Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!
Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.
Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."
Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.
are you ranting about the bakers again?
no one is allowed to be subjected to bigotry when someone runs a business offering public accommodation.
or do we need to explain it to yet again?
Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.
I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.Change can be easily limited.The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.
Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
Your state's definition is unconstitutional.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.
that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.
You should really reconsider your usage of the word "normal"
no. you're so far to the extremes, you and your little loony toon friends, that I have no need to do that, little boy
Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.Change can be easily limited.Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
Your state's definition is unconstitutional.
Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.
What?...that doesn't make senseUnfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.Change can be easily limited.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
Your state's definition is unconstitutional.
You can't oppress someone when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed.
Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.
Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...
Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.
I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.
What?...that doesn't make senseUnfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.
Your state's definition is unconstitutional.
You can't oppress someone when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed.
Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.
Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.
Say, this, what you wrote again, only out loud, to somebody elseWhat?...that doesn't make senseUnfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.Your state's definition is unconstitutional.
You can't oppress someone when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed.
Sorry you're so stupid you can't understand simple concepts. If there isn't a right to something you claim, you can't claim a right is being oppressed.
Say, this, what you wrote again, only out loud, to somebody elseWhat?...that doesn't make senseUnfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacyNot when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.
You can't oppress someone when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed.
Sorry you're so stupid you can't understand simple concepts. If there isn't a right to something you claim, you can't claim a right is being oppressed.
"when there is not right on what they claim is being oppressed."
Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.
I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.
Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.
Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage
Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
sad, isn't it? you'd think that at this point everyone would know a friend or family member who's gay and be used to it. *shakes head*
Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.
The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.
sad, isn't it? you'd think that at this point everyone would know a friend or family member who's gay and be used to it. *shakes head*
I don't have gay friends and nothing to do with family members that are.
I don't even know what the Hell that means, but okay...Yes. I mean you moralistic zealots, who feel you have the right to demand, by altering the the law, that people behave according to your personal moral beliefs.What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".Change can be easily limited.
Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.
What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.
Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.
Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.
You guys? Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.
In the end, when us moralistic types turn our heads and walk away from all perversion, the world will be a far far better place?
Rigggghhhhttttttttt
Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.
By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.
homos?
that's what you think passes for civil discourse?
Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.
Laughing at, and scared of are two completely different things.
if you were "laughing at" them, you wouldn't spend so much of your time talking about them. you'd just shut your stupid mouth and sit back bemused.
