Unless you're gay, on the dole, or a commie why would you vote Democrat ?

[P@triot]

Are the majority Jewish people who vote Democrat gay, on the dole, and vote commie? What a silly premise!

Well considering that Dumbocrats hate Jewish people and condemn them and Israel, I'd say only the really stupid Jewish people vote Dumbocrat. And if they are that stupid, then logic would dictate they are most likely on the dole for their basic needs for survival.

When was the last time you were right about anything, hater dupe lol? I'm a retired teacher, shyttehead.

The angry hater dupes can't imagine educated and concerned about the world and other people, even ones different from us....ay caramba lol...

If you are a "retired educator", that explains a lot. Mostly why our education system is such a shit-hole creating uneducated parasites.

I mean, you can't even form coherent sentences and you were an "educator"?!? God Almighty...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

that's why traditional marriage is different....it isn't just a 'contract' between two whatevers.....it is a relationship between one man and one woman who can typically have children together....thus forming the basic block of society....much more than just a 'contract'....

or should our society go backwards.....like to the days when women were used in 'contract' agreements like chattel....?

In the eyes of the state a marriage contract is simply that: a contract. Should the state monitor every marriage to assure that each marriage maintains a healthy relationship? If marriage was established by the state for procreation, should the elderly be eligible for a marriage license?

real marriage is more than just 'a contract'.....it's not like some employment contract...
marriage was also not 'established by the state'...

marriage is a covenant....a holy sacrament....based on religious teachings that include many aspects of the relationship between a man and a woman...our American society has held these beliefs since our country began...if you believe in simply contracts then you are debasing the meaning of real marriage....and cutting religion from the picture is preventing the free practice of religion...

since you say it's only a contract in the eyes of the state....the state should then take steps to recognize marriage as a separate and different entity than 'gay marriage' which should be called civil unions....because they are actually two different entities....

 

[P@triot]

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

since marriage typically involves children how do you explain the non-equal treatment of children...? aren't gays denying them their equal rights to having both a mother and a father....not to mention equal rights to their biological heritage....including familial relationships....?

HousePainter doesn't seem to want to answer the question...

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?

Are you serious?!?

Gee...other than every conservative organization in the world fighting divorce 24x7, I have no idea why conservatives aren't fighting divorce...

I can't tell if you are just some bizarre lonely troll or the most uninformed human I've ever encountered.

 

[KNB]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

 

[GISMYS]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

ALL sin affects those living near the sinner. Remember that just one man's sin brought ruin to all creation!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

since marriage typically involves children how do you explain the non-equal treatment of children...? aren't gays denying them their equal rights to having both a mother and a father....not to mention equal rights to their biological heritage....including familial relationships....?

HousePainter doesn't seem to want to answer the question...

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?

years ago conservatives did fight for stricter divorce laws but were beaten by the liberal idiots who supported the commie goal to break up the family unit by making it easier to get a divorce by passing no-fault divorce laws....

commie liberals have pushed sexual permissiveness and 'open marriage' and 'gay marriage' and so have basically destroyed marriage.....there are fewer divorces today because there are fewer marriages...

our children and our society as a whole have greatly suffered the negative consequences of irresponsible liberalism...

 

[P@triot]

You betray a genuine ignorance of contract law. The marriage license provides a next of kin relationship between two adults who have no such relationship. Two adults, not a gaggle of adults. Not animals! When have animals ever been in legal contracts? Not between siblings. They are next of kin. Your arguments are lame.

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

To say your argument is absurd (not to mention just plain bizarre) is a monumental understatement. Are you really this ignorant or is this all an act?

Rightly understood, marriage is a comprehensive union. It unites spouses at all levels of their being: hearts, minds, and bodies, where man and woman form a two-in-one-flesh union. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman, and on the sociological reality that children benefit from having a mother and a father

Opposition to Same Sex Marriage Has Nothing to Do with Race

Interesting - from every perspective possible (anthropological, biological, sociological) not once was "establishing next of kin" mentioned.

I love when unhinged liberals make up their own absurd version of reality....

 

[KNB]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

ALL sin affects those living near the sinner. Remember that just one man's sin brought ruin to all creation!

One man's sin brought ruin to all creation? Who was that? Gilgamesh?

Adam and Eve didn't sign any paperwork to be married, did they? It was just an understanding between two people and their Creator, right? The same applies for gay couples. It's just an understanding between them and God, so passing a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to legally discriminate against homosexual and lesbians is pointless, and unconstitutional.

They can be married in the eyes of God without your approval.

 

[GISMYS]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

ALL sin affects those living near the sinner. Remember that just one man's sin brought ruin to all creation!

One man's sin brought ruin to all creation? Who was that? Gilgamesh?

Adam and Eve didn't sign any paperwork to be married, did they? It was just an understanding between two people and their Creator, right? The same applies for gay couples. It's just an understanding between them and God, so passing a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to legally discriminate against homosexual and lesbians is pointless, and unconstitutional.

They can be married in the eyes of God without your approval.

God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin, and do whatever they wanted to—yes, vile and sinful things with each other’s bodies. 25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they prayed to the things God made, but wouldn’t obey the blessed God who made these things.

26 That is why God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
ROMANS 1:24-32

 

[Nosmo King]

that's why traditional marriage is different....it isn't just a 'contract' between two whatevers.....it is a relationship between one man and one woman who can typically have children together....thus forming the basic block of society....much more than just a 'contract'....

or should our society go backwards.....like to the days when women were used in 'contract' agreements like chattel....?

In the eyes of the state a marriage contract is simply that: a contract. Should the state monitor every marriage to assure that each marriage maintains a healthy relationship? If marriage was established by the state for procreation, should the elderly be eligible for a marriage license?

real marriage is more than just 'a contract'.....it's not like some employment contract...
marriage was also not 'established by the state'...

marriage is a covenant....a holy sacrament....based on religious teachings that include many aspects of the relationship between a man and a woman...our American society has held these beliefs since our country began...if you believe in simply contracts then you are debasing the meaning of real marriage....and cutting religion from the picture is preventing the free practice of religion...

since you say it's only a contract in the eyes of the state....the state should then take steps to recognize marriage as a separate and different entity than 'gay marriage' which should be called civil unions....because they are actually two different entities....

I always said "in the eyes of the state" because that's the world we are talking about. If different faiths and congregations want to sanctify a marriage, there's nothing the state can do under the first amendment. But states are denying access to a contract, a license to establish a new legal entity: a wedded couple.

Remember two things; equal treatment and access to justice are the bedrock of our system of jurisprudence and, separate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional. Civil Unions are just another way of diminishing homosexuals.

 

[P@triot]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

First of all, thank you for illustrating how liberals have already destroyed marriage.

Second, it threatens heterosexual marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman. That's what marriage is. Trying to redefine it is as absurd as declaring that we need to redefine what the sun is and call rain and clouds "sun" as well. Most of all, it creates real, actual discrimination which ends with an absolute cluster-fuck of a mess (in other words - it ends how liberal policy always ends):

Once you redefine marriage between two men or two women, you lose any and all grounds to deny any other form of marriage. So when crazy cat lady wants free healthcare for her cat, she gets to marry her cat (and you can't say a fuck'n thing about it because you declared that it's not right to interfere with someone's desire to marry outside of one man and one woman).

But that's actually the least of the concern. The bigger nightmare occurs when radical middle-east muslim man decides that America and his company must recognize all 18 of his wives. And since it would be "discrimination" to only provide healthcare, perks, and benefits to one wife, the company must now provide endless healthcare to 18 wives (or more). Which causes costs to skyrocket for ALL of us.

And then it just gets worse from there. Once radical middle-east muslim man ends up in an ICU, all 18 wives are now entitled to access to him in the ICU - creating an unhealthy situation of a crowd in an ICU. And then the fun part begins - the physician tells them that there is nothing else that can be done. So 9 wives declare that he be taken off of life support. But the other 9 wives declare that he is to remain on life support. Now what junior?

This is just the tip of the iceberg - yet these issues illustrate just how profoundly ignorant the modern day liberal Dumbocrat is when they create their policy or form their positions. Everything the modern day liberal Dumbocrat does is a knee-jerk reaction, emotional response without any thought, logic, or reason.

 

[P@triot]

In the eyes of the state a marriage contract is simply that: a contract. Should the state monitor every marriage to assure that each marriage maintains a healthy relationship? If marriage was established by the state for procreation, should the elderly be eligible for a marriage license?

real marriage is more than just 'a contract'.....it's not like some employment contract...
marriage was also not 'established by the state'...

marriage is a covenant....a holy sacrament....based on religious teachings that include many aspects of the relationship between a man and a woman...our American society has held these beliefs since our country began...if you believe in simply contracts then you are debasing the meaning of real marriage....and cutting religion from the picture is preventing the free practice of religion...

since you say it's only a contract in the eyes of the state....the state should then take steps to recognize marriage as a separate and different entity than 'gay marriage' which should be called civil unions....because they are actually two different entities....

I always said "in the eyes of the state" because that's the world we are talking about. If different faiths and congregations want to sanctify a marriage, there's nothing the state can do under the first amendment. But states are denying access to a contract, a license to establish a new legal entity: a wedded couple.

Remember two things; equal treatment and access to justice are the bedrock of our system of jurisprudence and, separate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional. Civil Unions are just another way of diminishing homosexuals.

And they have been given equal treatment from the beginning of time. Every gay man in America has had unlimited access to marry any woman he wanted. And every gay woman in America has had unlimited access to marry any man she wanted.

What you want for the gay community is special treatment - not equal treatment. You want them to have special privileges above and beyond what everyone else has.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

In the eyes of the state a marriage contract is simply that: a contract. Should the state monitor every marriage to assure that each marriage maintains a healthy relationship? If marriage was established by the state for procreation, should the elderly be eligible for a marriage license?

real marriage is more than just 'a contract'.....it's not like some employment contract...
marriage was also not 'established by the state'...

marriage is a covenant....a holy sacrament....based on religious teachings that include many aspects of the relationship between a man and a woman...our American society has held these beliefs since our country began...if you believe in simply contracts then you are debasing the meaning of real marriage....and cutting religion from the picture is preventing the free practice of religion...

since you say it's only a contract in the eyes of the state....the state should then take steps to recognize marriage as a separate and different entity than 'gay marriage' which should be called civil unions....because they are actually two different entities....

I always said "in the eyes of the state" because that's the world we are talking about. If different faiths and congregations want to sanctify a marriage, there's nothing the state can do under the first amendment. But states are denying access to a contract, a license to establish a new legal entity: a wedded couple.

Remember two things; equal treatment and access to justice are the bedrock of our system of jurisprudence and, separate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional. Civil Unions are just another way of diminishing homosexuals.

why is a civil union considered less than marriage...after all it's just a contractual distinction...isn't it...?

 

[HenryBHough]

Is it fair to call an aged-out indoctrination technician a "retired teacher"?

Were BOTH official classifications should there be any difference in their pensions? I would think the IT might feel more entitled.

 

[rightwinger]

since marriage typically involves children how do you explain the non-equal treatment of children...? aren't gays denying them their equal rights to having both a mother and a father....not to mention equal rights to their biological heritage....including familial relationships....?

HousePainter doesn't seem to want to answer the question...

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?

Are you serious?!?

Gee...other than every conservative organization in the world fighting divorce 24x7, I have no idea why conservatives aren't fighting divorce...

I can't tell if you are just some bizarre lonely troll or the most uninformed human I've ever encountered.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and was a horrible father....yet, conservatives worship him

 

[KNB]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

First of all, thank you for illustrating how liberals have already destroyed marriage.

Second, it threatens heterosexual marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman. That's what marriage is. Trying to redefine it is as absurd as declaring that we need to redefine what the sun is and call rain and clouds "sun" as well. Most of all, it creates real, actual discrimination which ends with an absolute cluster-fuck of a mess (in other words - it ends how liberal policy always ends):

Once you redefine marriage between two men or two women, you lose any and all grounds to deny any other form of marriage. So when crazy cat lady wants free healthcare for her cat, she gets to marry her cat (and you can't say a fuck'n thing about it because you declared that it's not right to interfere with someone's desire to marry outside of one man and one woman).

But that's actually the least of the concern. The bigger nightmare occurs when radical middle-east muslim man decides that America and his company must recognize all 18 of his wives. And since it would be "discrimination" to only provide healthcare, perks, and benefits to one wife, the company must now provide endless healthcare to 18 wives (or more). Which causes costs to skyrocket for ALL of us.

And then it just gets worse from there. Once radical middle-east muslim man ends up in an ICU, all 18 wives are now entitled to access to him in the ICU - creating an unhealthy situation of a crowd in an ICU. And then the fun part begins - the physician tells them that there is nothing else that can be done. So 9 wives declare that he be taken off of life support. But the other 9 wives declare that he is to remain on life support. Now what junior?

This is just the tip of the iceberg - yet these issues illustrate just how profoundly ignorant the modern day liberal Dumbocrat is when they create their policy or form their positions. Everything the modern day liberal Dumbocrat does is a knee-jerk reaction, emotional response without any thought, logic, or reason.

The "sanctity" of marriage is make-believe, like God. When something is make-believe, like God, you can change it any way that you want and it's still the same- not real.

Marriage is real, legally recognized by the state. Divorce is real, too. Since there isn't any Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Christians don't have any say in the matter. The First Amendment says that your religious Christian rules don't govern America. So that's all there is to it.

You crazy fucking Conservatives always jump from "gay marriage" to "bestiality". That isn't the argument. No one is arguing for an old landlady's right to marry her cat. That's all in your imagination, like God.

In other words, shove your Bible up your ass until you choke.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?

Are you serious?!?

Gee...other than every conservative organization in the world fighting divorce 24x7, I have no idea why conservatives aren't fighting divorce...

I can't tell if you are just some bizarre lonely troll or the most uninformed human I've ever encountered.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and was a horrible father....yet, conservatives worship him

they don't worship that aspect of his life.....probably why his son became gay...

 

[rightwinger]

Are you serious?!?

Gee...other than every conservative organization in the world fighting divorce 24x7, I have no idea why conservatives aren't fighting divorce...

I can't tell if you are just some bizarre lonely troll or the most uninformed human I've ever encountered.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and was a horrible father....yet, conservatives worship him

they don't worship that aspect of his life.....probably why his son became gay...

Newt Gingrich?

 

[P@triot]

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?

Are you serious?!?

Gee...other than every conservative organization in the world fighting divorce 24x7, I have no idea why conservatives aren't fighting divorce...

I can't tell if you are just some bizarre lonely troll or the most uninformed human I've ever encountered.

Ronald Reagan was divorced and was a horrible father....yet, conservatives worship him

First, I've never heard he was a "horrible father". Do you have anything that is not radical left-wing propaganda to back up that claim?

Second, as far as his marriage, he was completely devoted to Nancy Reagan and a world-class husband to her.

Third, have you ever heard a conservative call Reagan "perfect? I know I haven't. I worship him - but I know he wasn't perfect. After all, he fucked up royally with amnesty. He made his mistakes. He was still light-years better than anyone else we've seen in the past 200 years.

 

[P@triot]

Yea, lo, and the Lord didst say unto the masses, "Marriage is a holy union between a man and his rib."

A 50% divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels in Las Vegas give the impression that the "sacred" institution of marriage is as sacred as a double-decker taco.

How do gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages?

First of all, thank you for illustrating how liberals have already destroyed marriage.

Second, it threatens heterosexual marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman. That's what marriage is. Trying to redefine it is as absurd as declaring that we need to redefine what the sun is and call rain and clouds "sun" as well. Most of all, it creates real, actual discrimination which ends with an absolute cluster-fuck of a mess (in other words - it ends how liberal policy always ends):

Once you redefine marriage between two men or two women, you lose any and all grounds to deny any other form of marriage. So when crazy cat lady wants free healthcare for her cat, she gets to marry her cat (and you can't say a fuck'n thing about it because you declared that it's not right to interfere with someone's desire to marry outside of one man and one woman).

But that's actually the least of the concern. The bigger nightmare occurs when radical middle-east muslim man decides that America and his company must recognize all 18 of his wives. And since it would be "discrimination" to only provide healthcare, perks, and benefits to one wife, the company must now provide endless healthcare to 18 wives (or more). Which causes costs to skyrocket for ALL of us.

And then it just gets worse from there. Once radical middle-east muslim man ends up in an ICU, all 18 wives are now entitled to access to him in the ICU - creating an unhealthy situation of a crowd in an ICU. And then the fun part begins - the physician tells them that there is nothing else that can be done. So 9 wives declare that he be taken off of life support. But the other 9 wives declare that he is to remain on life support. Now what junior?

This is just the tip of the iceberg - yet these issues illustrate just how profoundly ignorant the modern day liberal Dumbocrat is when they create their policy or form their positions. Everything the modern day liberal Dumbocrat does is a knee-jerk reaction, emotional response without any thought, logic, or reason.

The "sanctity" of marriage is make-believe, like God. When something is make-believe, like God, you can change it any way that you want and it's still the same- not real.

Marriage is real, legally recognized by the state. Divorce is real, too. Since there isn't any Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Christians don't have any say in the matter. The First Amendment says that your religious Christian rules don't govern America. So that's all there is to it.

You crazy fucking Conservatives always jump from "gay marriage" to "bestiality". That isn't the argument. No one is arguing for an old landlady's right to marry her cat. That's all in your imagination, like God.

In other words, shove your Bible up your ass until you choke.

In other words, the moment someone presents KNB with a sound, rational argument in which he has no answer for, he resorts to colorful language and lashing out like a small child who can't use his words....

Your response proved that you just got owned chief. Nobody said "bestiality" - a woman doesn't have to have sex with her cat to marry it. Furthermore, I notice you had NO response for the radical middle-east muslim man and his 18 wives (further proof that you got owned chief).

The only thing make believe is your belief in your facts and your knowledge. As I said in my post above - and you just proved - everything the modern day liberal Dumbocrat does is a knee-jerk reaction, emotional response without any thought, logic, or reason. When faced with an intelligent, thought out, rational response, KNB had a knee-jerk, emotional melt-down reaction wailing against God and the bible (two items I hadn't even brought up). Owned junior. Owned...