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.
Excellent question, syrius........as your own spouse, would you be able to make medical decisions for yourself? Just like you can now?
Do you get to inheret your own property when you die?
If your job provides medical benefits, does that mean you can use them? Just like you can now?
Since you don't have to testify against a spouse, does that mean you don't have to self incriminate? Just like now?
And when you divorce yourself, do you have to pay you child support?
When you have sex about yourself, and fantasize about yourself- isn't that the ultimate form of homosexuality?
Wait...if you have sex with someone else, does that mean you cheated? Or you're just a kinky swinger?
Of course, in such a case of self marriage, if you had sex with anyone else but your self that would be grounds for divorce as adultery and you could take yourself to the cleaners denying yourself the home and money and child custody so that your spouse didn't get them. You would screw yourself out of those things so you could have them instead.
>>>>
You lost and the faggots won. How long before you go off to beat up another minority?How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't. It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes. That's because thousands of years of experience, millions even if you go far back enough and a Mt. Everest of psychological data tell us that children deprived of their gender's parental role modeling early in life do not fare well.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage.. And it is precisely how forced gay marriage harms a state.
If a state's citizens get together and decide that they want this expanded psychological version of a single parent household, then so be it. But since this is a lifestyle (Anne Heche), let those who practice it win the hearts and minds of the voters instead of jamming it down their throats.
How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't.
It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage..
You lost and the faggots won. How long before you go off to beat up another minority?How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't. It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes. That's because thousands of years of experience, millions even if you go far back enough and a Mt. Everest of psychological data tell us that children deprived of their gender's parental role modeling early in life do not fare well.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage.. And it is precisely how forced gay marriage harms a state.
If a state's citizens get together and decide that they want this expanded psychological version of a single parent household, then so be it. But since this is a lifestyle (Anne Heche), let those who practice it win the hearts and minds of the voters instead of jamming it down their throats.
The issue was already settled generations ago: marriage is a fundamental right. That you ignore our law doesn't change our law.
The issue was already settled generations ago: marriage is a fundamental right. That you ignore our law doesn't change our law.
You mean when it comes to men and women marrying who are of a different race of people.
Yes, that's a right. Behaviors in and of themselves don't have rights. Thats' why we have a democracy, the penal and civil codes regulated at the state and local level. They govern behaviors.
....our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.
Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 2003 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
For when it comes to rights (marriage as a right is never mentioned nor allluded to in the US Constitution), all must enjoy them, not some, petition by petition...
Um, no. The USSC stated simply that marriage was a basic civil right. They didn't put any caveats on it, as only applying to interracial marriages. If you can show me anywhere in the Loving Ruling the USSC indicated that marriage is only a right for interracial couples, I'd love to see it.
Because you'll find no such caveats exist.
United States v. Windsor
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution
Well, she's being left in the past so that comes as no surprise. The rest of the country is growing up on this issue, and she isn't.You lost and the faggots won. How long before you go off to beat up another minority?How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't. It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes. That's because thousands of years of experience, millions even if you go far back enough and a Mt. Everest of psychological data tell us that children deprived of their gender's parental role modeling early in life do not fare well.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage.. And it is precisely how forced gay marriage harms a state.
If a state's citizens get together and decide that they want this expanded psychological version of a single parent household, then so be it. But since this is a lifestyle (Anne Heche), let those who practice it win the hearts and minds of the voters instead of jamming it down their throats.
You get a sense of quiet desperation in Silo's more recent posts.
How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't. It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes. That's because thousands of years of experience, millions even if you go far back enough and a Mt. Everest of psychological data tell us that children deprived of their gender's parental role modeling early in life do not fare well.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage.. And it is precisely how forced gay marriage harms a state.
If a state's citizens get together and decide that they want this expanded psychological version of a single parent household, then so be it. But since this is a lifestyle (Anne Heche), let those who practice it win the hearts and minds of the voters instead of jamming it down their throats.
The rest of the country is growing up on this issue...
It should have been 100%, but Americans are dumb as dog shit. 100% for not forcing the churches to go against their beliefs on this, and 100% support for gay marriage would be actually growing up, something you will never do.How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?
The answer is, you can't. It's everyone or the states keep their right to define it as a privelege for the sake of incentivizing the best formative environment for the most important people in a marriage; the children..
The states have always historically advocated man/woman marriage because the state abhorred single parent homes. That's because thousands of years of experience, millions even if you go far back enough and a Mt. Everest of psychological data tell us that children deprived of their gender's parental role modeling early in life do not fare well.
Gay marriage is structurally the same as single parents. This indeed would be a monumental change in the States' interest in setting standards for the privelege of marriage.. And it is precisely how forced gay marriage harms a state.
If a state's citizens get together and decide that they want this expanded psychological version of a single parent household, then so be it. But since this is a lifestyle (Anne Heche), let those who practice it win the hearts and minds of the voters instead of jamming it down their throats.
The rest of the country is growing up on this issue...
If the rest of the country is "growing up" on this issue then how come 82% of the people who voted on the most popular poll in USMB's history said they don't think gay marraige belongs in a church? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 636 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And if you're so certain your lifestyle and that of polygamists and others are so cool and groovy, so "grown up" to be incentivized to create childrens' formative environment, why not put it to the voters of each state instead of feeling the need to force it upon states? Sell your product, don't hog-tie people and shove it into their stomachs with a piping bag.
It should have been 100%, but Americans are dumb as dog shit. 100% for not forcing the churches to go against their beliefs on this, and 100% support for gay marriage would be actually growing up, something you will never do.
A church is like a corporation. It's not a person but it has certain rights, and no one is going to be forcing the churches to perform gay marriages.It should have been 100%, but Americans are dumb as dog shit. 100% for not forcing the churches to go against their beliefs on this, and 100% support for gay marriage would be actually growing up, something you will never do.
So how is a church anything but a congregation of individual christians? Since individual christians are being sued right and left, being forced to go against their beliefs, what barrier exists between a lawsuit and a church? "You can sue the religion out of an individual, but not a group of them with the same beliefs"?
Seriously dude. People aren't dumb as you say.
A church is like a corporation. It's not a person but it has certain rights, and no one is going to be forcing the churches to perform gay marriages.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with children, not a thing. And a church, for this argument, is a building and the legal status it has with the state. That's all. The people that make up the church are irrelevant, like your arguments about children.A church is like a corporation. It's not a person but it has certain rights, and no one is going to be forcing the churches to perform gay marriages.
For legal purposes, a church is a congregation of the faithful. That's how they get tax-exempt status. Not because of a building or a set of by-laws. And anyway their by-laws are being violated where freedom of religion actually resides: in the heart of each christian person.. So you are saying essentially that a "church" is merely a building.
You still also have yet to show how it is that a state must incentivize the formative environment for kids, a situation that guarantees to deprive them of one of the complimentary genders 100% of the time; like single parent homes do.
A state gets nothing out of the tax breaks to participants other than a set of conditions statistically proven to turn out the best/least expensive productive future citizens/children.
Marriage equality has nothing to do with children, not a thing. And a church, for this argument, is a building and the legal status it has with the state. That's all. The people that make up the church are irrelevant, like your arguments about children.
How long before you understand that:Marriage equality has nothing to do with children, not a thing. And a church, for this argument, is a building and the legal status it has with the state. That's all. The people that make up the church are irrelevant, like your arguments about children.
Well, there's a problem there....because marriage DOES have everything to do with children at the state level so... In order to push through "marriage equality" there are a couple things:
1. You'd have to force states to abdicate their benefit of regulating marriage (to entice the best formative environment for children anticipated to be born naturally, adopted, fostered or grandparented) and
2. You'd have to force states to allow ALL types of alternative sexual/relationship lifestyles (not just your pet favorites) so that "equality" actually had meaning in the phrase "marriage equality"
The reason you have lost is because there is no compelling state interest in keeping gays from getting married just like heterosexuals....
How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?.
