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.
This fails as a red herring fallacy, same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry.Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sexthere is no inequality there, and if you can show me were the discussion and ratification of the 14th amendment they spoke about gay "marriage" I'd like you to point that out to me, ok? These judges have no authority to overturn the state constitutions. There inequality there.
The 14th amendment spoke of 'privileges and immunities'. And the right to marry is one of them. That you don't believe it to be so is legally irrelevant, as frankly you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the law.
using that logic, what argument do you make against multiple person marriages?
This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, same-sex couples marrying is not "anything goes."Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.
This country has serious problems
Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.
The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.
It's a "problem" in your head only. Who cares if gays call themselves "married?"
no one, but it sets a very dangerous precedent. If two men or two women are allowed to marry because it would discriminate against them to not allow it, then the exact same argument will be made for multiple person marriages. "why should they be prevented for marrying who they love and being able to live as they choose?"
its the next logical step, if you are OK with all forms of human co-habitation being called marriage, then fine. But get ready for a complete collapse of civilization.
How is "marriage" going to collapse society? I mean don't get me wrong I think society IS collapsing, but not because of this.
a society where anything goes will not survive. History proves that. Ever study any world history?
Seeking to enact measures designed to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law is bigotry and discrimination, however.Fishy attempts a deflection...fails.
If opposition to interracial marriage isn't racism and bigotry, what is it?
opposition to interracial marriage wrong and racist, it had nothing to do with same sex marriage.
are you now claiming that homosexuality is a race?
No and I never have, but you made the claim that opposition to same sex marriage wasn't anti gay bigotry. It is...just as opposition to interracial marriage is also bigotry. Fine company...
continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.
being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.
Marriage is not a right, never has been a right, there are restrictions
Nonsense.Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.
And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.
before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.
Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.
Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.
The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.
Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.
The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.
All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.
And you could certainly have that you dummy.
It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.
Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.
you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.
No, you're not the only one.the constitution was adopted and modified by majority vote. Let the people speak by casting their votes. Thats all I am asking for.
Am I the only one that knows that the Constitution was not ratified, nor were any of the amendment passed, by national referendum and individual votes? The Constitution was ratified through a representative process at conventions and and amendments have been approved through State legislative action (IIRC the approval by conventions has never been exercised even though it exists).
The point being there is no federal provision for a "referendum" or direct vote on changes to the Constitution.
>>>>
thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.
the danger exists when minorities control the majority.
Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?
Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.
Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.
But you're just digging a hole for yourself.
If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.
It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.
I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.
Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?
Nonsense.before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.
Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.
Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.
The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.
Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.
The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.
All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.
And you could certainly have that you dummy.
It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.
Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.
you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.
Only, he must first extricate it from his incredibly tight sphincter.Great news!Bill and Jim and Mary and Sue and Louise want to get married. they feel discriminated against because they share a mutual love. Why does this country discriminate against them but not against Joe and Tom or Jane and Donna?
You fools have opened the door to all forms of marriage. Gay marriage sets a legal precedent for all forms and combinations of marriage based on feeling discriminated against.
Its coming, get ready. I am sure the divorce lawyers are licking their chops to handle a multiple person divorce.
You'll be able to marry your palm!
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
spoken like a true buttfucker
Did you know that some of the most vocal homophobes turned out to be closet homosexuals? Your disgust may be a form of disguise?
Top 5 homophobes who turned out to be gay City Pages
nope, not a chance. but continue the fantasy if it somehow helps you to justify your anormality.
opposition to interracial marriage wrong and racist, it had nothing to do with same sex marriage.
are you now claiming that homosexuality is a race?
No and I never have, but you made the claim that opposition to same sex marriage wasn't anti gay bigotry. It is...just as opposition to interracial marriage is also bigotry. Fine company...
continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.
being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.
Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.
Nonsense.Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.
The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.
All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.
And you could certainly have that you dummy.
It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.
Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.
you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.
horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?
No and I never have, but you made the claim that opposition to same sex marriage wasn't anti gay bigotry. It is...just as opposition to interracial marriage is also bigotry. Fine company...
continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.
being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.
Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.
you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?
it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.
This fails as a red herring fallacy, same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry.Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex
The 14th amendment spoke of 'privileges and immunities'. And the right to marry is one of them. That you don't believe it to be so is legally irrelevant, as frankly you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the law.
using that logic, what argument do you make against multiple person marriages?
continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.
The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.
being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.
Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.
you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?
it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.
Dude......your bigotry being based in religion doesn't make it any less bigoted. You claim that having a religious, moral, or biological basis for your argument means that you're not bigoted. But you've never been able to explain why that would be. Opponents of interracial marriage for example cited religion, morality and biology as the basis of their claims.
And yet were flaming bigots. Even you admitted as much.
thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.
the danger exists when minorities control the majority.
Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?
Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.
Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.
But you're just digging a hole for yourself.
If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.
It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.
I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.
Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?
the moral compass of a society is set by the members of that society, with the majority view prevailing. In current parlance its called democracy. Thats all I want on the gay marriage issue, a societal consensus, not a govt dictate.
The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.
being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.
Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.
you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?
it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.
Dude......your bigotry being based in religion doesn't make it any less bigoted. You claim that having a religious, moral, or biological basis for your argument means that you're not bigoted. But you've never been able to explain why that would be. Opponents of interracial marriage for example cited religion, morality and biology as the basis of their claims.
And yet were flaming bigots. Even you admitted as much.
interracial marriage involves one man and woman of different races. a marriage of two men or two women, or three women and six men is not analogous.
until you fools get off this kick, you will never make any progress.
thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.
the danger exists when minorities control the majority.
Oh, you're still wiling away with this decrepit argument?
Firstly it was a majority vote. It wasn't the majority will of the people.
Brown v. Board of education which ended segregation was NOT based on a majority vote in congress, but in the Supreme Court. The ending of slavery was done by the president.
But you're just digging a hole for yourself.
If gay marriage is implemented it will either be by the legislature, elected by the people somehow in a vote by some people in the legislature, or by the executive, elected by the people, or the judiciary which is chosen by the people who are elected.
It's all, sort of, democratic. So, you'd have to support gay marriage with this argument.
I already said that I would. I just want all voices to be heard.
Really? The amount of to-ing and fro-ing from you is incredible, tomorrow it'll be another story. So you'd let this supposed moral compass disappear if the will of the people says that the moral compass is plain wrong?
the moral compass of a society is set by the members of that society, with the majority view prevailing. In current parlance its called democracy. Thats all I want on the gay marriage issue, a societal consensus, not a govt dictate.
Its a synthesis of our laws, or rights and majority votes. The voters can't vote to strip folks of their rights without a very good reason, as rights trump powers generally speaking. If your claims were valid, any State could with a simple vote strip its residents of say, their right to keep and bear arms. Or their right to free practice of religion.
Nonsense.Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.
The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.
All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.
And you could certainly have that you dummy.
It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.
Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.
you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.
horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?
