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.
So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.
Welcome to America, Bub.
That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
Mark
Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
So you think, somehow magically, that we will return to the Gold Old Days when the faggots stayed in the closet and didn't have rights? God you are fucking dumb.Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.Gee, answer the fucking question. What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
Now you answer mine.
I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?You want to get rid of those too, right?I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
Mark
So you're FOR Divorce?
LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.
Welcome to America, Bub.
That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
Mark
Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Yes, and you are said evil.Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
So...you're not a fan of civil rights, I take it.So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.
Welcome to America, Bub.
That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
Mark
Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Civil Rights?
You're speaking of the mechanism the Left uses as a means to promote the separation of mankind from its natural, Human Rights?
Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?You want to get rid of those too, right?I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
Mark
So you're FOR Divorce?
LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the fuck up?So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?No. What you said there is your opinion. Same as me.
Welcome to America, Bub.
That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
Mark
Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?You want to get rid of those too, right?I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
Mark
So you're FOR Divorce?
LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.
Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against? Mark
A person in Illinois has the same innate right to marry the person he chooses as does anyone in Utah.
Opposition to marriage equality is opposition to innate rights and the Constitution.
If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry one of your own sex. No one cares, son.
Answer my question, stupid fuck.So you think, somehow magically, that we will return to the Gold Old Days when the faggots stayed in the closet and didn't have rights? God you are fucking dumb.Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.Gee, answer the fucking question. What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
Now you answer mine.
Move to Jesusland and get the fuck out of my country.
The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the fuck up?So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
Mark
Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass. It had nothing to do with marriage. And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex. It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is? Morons here, total fucking morons.What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
Mark
But I will, because it's pertinent.
Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then? Okay, see ya.The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the fuck up?So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?Are you aware that your argument was used before?
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
The game is never over. Ever.
Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option. You want divorce eliminated legally?You want to get rid of those too, right?I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
Mark
So you're FOR Divorce?
LOL! And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.
Equality is a Moral thing dumbass.SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
“DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”
Incorrect
The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (US v. Windsor (2013)).
SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
“Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”
Incorrect.
That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
“Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”
Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (Romer v. Evans (1996)).
You said this:
That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:
Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?
Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?
There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.
If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.
Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist?
So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then? Okay, see ya.The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the fuck up?So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
Mark
Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
The game is never over. Ever.
Please make your point.Please read the 9th amendment.Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them.
Yes, and you are said evil.Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of faggot-haters like yourself. America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then? Okay, see ya.The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind? How long before you grow the fuck up?So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
The game is never over. Ever.
Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?
