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.
Flaming imbecile, straight people had the right to marry the person they love. How do you still not get this?That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?
LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either
It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that
Your handlers depend on your stupidity.On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?
If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.
Your handlers depend on your stupidity.If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
We really are not that ambitious. Silencing Christians is damn near impossible. Our goals are more modest.
Now, don't be coy, KG, you know that you have a crush on me!
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...
(FYI...it's 2015)
Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....
The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
then i guess we don't need that Civil Rights Act anymore since nobody 'gets to vote on Civil Rights"........hahaha....we'll just leave it all up to those know-it-all lawyers....
Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?
If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...
(FYI...it's 2015)
Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....
The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.
You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.
then i guess we don't need that Civil Rights Act anymore since nobody 'gets to vote on Civil Rights"........hahaha....we'll just leave it all up to those know-it-all lawyers....
I said YOU don't.
How would you like your 2nd Amendment rights put up for a majority vote?
Flaming imbecile, straight people had the right to marry the person they love. How do you still not get this?That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.Sorry faun, two same sex brothers can't marry. They are banned, you like arbitrary law? Or do you see benefit in allowing limited access?
LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either
It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that
like i said before.......actual votes trump fishy polls...Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.
True, but the two terms are not synonymous. His link referenced black civil rights...not slimy ass pilots.Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.
Faun is queer, it's on his avatar
Wrong again, most people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?
If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Wrong again, most people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
Leave it to a rightard to disparage getting married for love.Flaming imbecile, straight people had the right to marry the person they love. How do you still not get this?That's because the law was not applied equally for gays.No siblings can marry ... the law is applied equally to everyone.
LOL, suddenly you get that, you didn't when straights couldn't marry the same sex either
It wasn't? Straight people can marry the same sex? I think you're wrong on that
the usual liberal LUV argument......Jeb! is also using the liberal LUV argument for the incoming illegals....
You really don't understand logic, do you dear?On what grounds do you purport polygamy should be legal?You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.
The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.
With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.
In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.
Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.
Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?
And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.
Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?
If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.
You?
If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.
I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
None of what you posted would meet the equal protection clause nor due process. You simply want them banned without a compelling state reason.
That's dangerous dear.
Yes, we know that you hate. A lot.You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.
Ok, let's examine it then:
Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.
Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?
The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.
That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?
The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.
The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.
It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?
The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?
None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?
Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?
We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.
Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.
Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.
Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.
You poor thing.
Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?
Reality bites, huh?
The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.
With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.
In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoyingOh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.
Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay.
So you hate progressives.
I do too.
Wrong again, most people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
Liar liar pants on fire.
Some are.Nope, the people wanted it too...What are you talking about? Gay marriage was already legal in 37 states.I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.
If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.
You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL
If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?
the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...
States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them
only because of the lawyers.....the courts....
big difference from what The People wanted....even gay Callyfornia voted against gay marriage....
Civil Rights
How sad, and lame. Blacks are not queer.
Yes, we know that you hate. A lot.You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.Ok, let's examine it then:
Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.
Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?
The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.
That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?
The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.
The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.
It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?
The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?
None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?
Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?
We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.
Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.
Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.
Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.
Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?
Reality bites, huh?
The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.
With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.
In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.I don't think that is annoying. I find neo Nazis annoyingOh, you mean evidence that progressive ideology is anti-constitutional. Yes, that is annoying.The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay.
So you hate progressives.
I do too.
You have made that quite apparent.
More "Christian" love...
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
