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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
How is spitting on interracial marriages any different than spitting on homosexual marriages? In both cases the marriages were between consenting adults. In both cases the marriages were banned by bigots. How is racial discrimination based on religious fears of hell on earth and rapture coming with racial mixing any different than homophobic discrimination based on religious fears of an ensuing Babylon, hell on earth and rapture coming with homosexual marriages?Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.BStwo gays should be able to enter into a civil union or a mutual support contract that would give them the same rights and priviledges as a man/woman marriage.
the gay agenda is not about equality or rights, its about using the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant abnormal lifestyle. the gay agenda insists on the word marriage because they think it would signal society that it must accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.
Thats the issue, not equality or rights. you may think homosexuality is a normal human condition, a vast majority of the people on planet earth do not.
First why should gays have to use the term civil union vs. heterosexual marriage? What are you the term police?
Second who the hell cares what the agenda is, the issue is not agenda the issue is ACTUAL HARM OUR LAWS ARE CAUSING THEM.
Third I don't think homosexuality is a normal human condition, nor do I think homosexuals think they are "normal." What is wrong with being unique or novel? We're all different in our own ways. Sure the vast majority aka normal human condition is heterosexuality, so what? Most people are over 5' tall does that mean we should have laws restricting people under 5' from getting married? OMFG look that person's to short that's not normal, we need to remove their genes and keep them from getting married?
It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.
If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.
Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?
Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?
So if someone disagrees you call them a homophobic bigot who spits on gays and back this up with an apples and oranges comparison. Yeah that's tolerant.
Are they not both bigotry against minority couples based on fear uncertainty and doubt trumpeted at them by religious zealots who place the crown on their heads?
As for your request that I be tolerant of bigotry. Puleze.
What changed? Why was banned before and now it's not? Can you say it? Why were the bigots wrong before but this time the bigots have it right?Take your pick.. a society of homophobic bigots that injures anyone that dares to live outside of societal norms, or a society that is tolerant of people that do not adhere to societal norms with regard to sexual orientation of consenting adults.It has to do with our society as a whole and the messages that are sent to our children. Societies crumble when they lose their moral compass and their sense of right and wrong.
If you don't care about the future of mankind and want an "anything goes" kind of culture, fine. I do not want that kind of culture for my kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids.
Do you spit on gays physically as well... or do you just spit on their dreams?
Did we crumble as a nation when interracial marriages started taking place?
I have gay relatives and friends. I love and respect every one of them. A society that accepts people for what they are is not homophobic or biased. Gays do not need to word 'marriage' in order to have equality and fair treatment. The gays that I know personally are not hung up on the marriage thing, they think its a joke because they know whats really behind it.
race and sex are not analogous when it comes to marriage.
Why not are you denying that interracial marriages used to be banned just like we are currently banning homosexual marriages?
interracial marriage was once banned-------------those marriages are now legal, as they should be. Those marriages also consist of one man and one woman. not two men or two women.
your attempt at analogy FAILS
How many times do you need to read something before you understand it? The debate on interracial marriage was concerning one man/one woman marriages. not a black man and a white man.
ITS NOT THE SAME. There is no bigotry in wanting gays to be able to legally commit to each other.
It also has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with biology.
You cannot be as dumb as you post. interracial and intersexual are not analogous.
interracial marriage was not banned in the past because of bigotry, it was banned because of ignorance. Do you understand that bigotry and ignorance are not the same thing?
Sending advisors and arms is not the same as sending 500,000 combat troops, of which 58,000 for nothing.
The deaths in viet nam are on Kennedy and Johnson. I lived through that crap, I know what happened.
No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.
Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.
No, unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs regardless of party. the 58,000 americans died as a direct result of the escalation under Kennedy and Johnson, not because Ike sent a few advisors.
Funny that you skip Nixon, but not real funny.
there were deaths under Nixon. He also ended it be declaring defeat. Then what we were trying to prevent happened. The "communists" took over. Was Viet Nam ever a threat to the USA? What did those 58,000 americans die for?
He scuttled the peace talks in 68. How many lives did that cost?
Yes Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - John Aloysius Farrell - POLITICO Magazine
Sending advisors and arms is not the same as sending 500,000 combat troops, of which 58,000 for nothing.
The deaths in viet nam are on Kennedy and Johnson. I lived through that crap, I know what happened.
No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.
Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.
No, unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs regardless of party. the 58,000 americans died as a direct result of the escalation under Kennedy and Johnson, not because Ike sent a few advisors.
Funny that you skip Nixon, but not real funny.
there were deaths under Nixon. He also ended it be declaring defeat. Then what we were trying to prevent happened. The "communists" took over. Was Viet Nam ever a threat to the USA? What did those 58,000 americans die for?
He scuttled the peace talks in 68. How many lives did that cost?
Yes Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - John Aloysius Farrell - POLITICO Magazine
How many times do you need to read something before you understand it? The debate on interracial marriage was concerning one man/one woman marriages. not a black man and a white man.
ITS NOT THE SAME. There is no bigotry in wanting gays to be able to legally commit to each other.
It also has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with biology.
Just because you decide the debate is only a matter of a small corner that you'd dug for yourself, doesn't mean it is for the other 7 billion people on this planet.
You cannot be as dumb as you post. interracial and intersexual are not analogous.
interracial marriage was not banned in the past because of bigotry, it was banned because of ignorance. Do you understand that bigotry and ignorance are not the same thing?
So racism is ignorance and anti-gay is bigotry then?
a large majority of those 7 billion oppose gay marriage. are all of them wrong and you right? What makes you superior? what makes your views better than others? Why do liberals want to dictate how others mus live?
it wasn't racism either, interracial marriage was opposed by all races because, in their ignorance, they believed that the races should not mix. thats not racism. you really don't t know what racism is, do you?
also, opposing gay marriage is not anti-gay.
your ignorance is really coming out on this one.
a large majority of those 7 billion oppose gay marriage. are all of them wrong and you right? What makes you superior? what makes your views better than others? Why do liberals want to dictate how others mus live?
So, you wanting to stop gay people marrying isn't dictating how they live? Come on.
Actually, I've spent a bit of time this year in some of those countries you mention. Not only do they hate gay marriage, or gay people in general, and some would have them executed, but they also believe a woman should do what they want them to do, they believe in polygamy and all sorts of things. So before you start looking for allies, just think who you're siding with.
it wasn't racism either, interracial marriage was opposed by all races because, in their ignorance, they believed that the races should not mix. thats not racism. you really don't t know what racism is, do you?
also, opposing gay marriage is not anti-gay.
your ignorance is really coming out on this one.
Oh, it was just simple innocence??? Even if it came from extremely intelligent men who made the US constitution and Bill of Rights?
No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.
Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.
No, unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs regardless of party. the 58,000 americans died as a direct result of the escalation under Kennedy and Johnson, not because Ike sent a few advisors.
Funny that you skip Nixon, but not real funny.
there were deaths under Nixon. He also ended it be declaring defeat. Then what we were trying to prevent happened. The "communists" took over. Was Viet Nam ever a threat to the USA? What did those 58,000 americans die for?
He scuttled the peace talks in 68. How many lives did that cost?
Yes Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - John Aloysius Farrell - POLITICO Magazine
No, it's not the same. However, we all know had Eisenhower been Democrat and the Kennedy and Johnson been Republican you'd have been blaming it all on Eisenhower.
Fact is, no president started the war. The war was going on from 1945 onwards before US intervention happened.
No, unlike you, I put the blame where it belongs regardless of party. the 58,000 americans died as a direct result of the escalation under Kennedy and Johnson, not because Ike sent a few advisors.
Funny that you skip Nixon, but not real funny.
there were deaths under Nixon. He also ended it be declaring defeat. Then what we were trying to prevent happened. The "communists" took over. Was Viet Nam ever a threat to the USA? What did those 58,000 americans die for?
He scuttled the peace talks in 68. How many lives did that cost?
Yes Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - John Aloysius Farrell - POLITICO Magazine
an editorial in politico-----------wow, is that where you learned your history? The Nixon peace talks are what led to our pulling out and declaring defeat. Our military could have won it in a few short months, but they were not allowed to and 58,000 americans died for nothing. Iraq and Afghanistan are repeating the history of viet nam, and sadly the results will probably be the same.
What do you have against the phrase "homosexual marriage" Why are you literally tied up in knots over the word "marriage"? Is it because you've been given orders by your republican leadership? Why do you think a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage? You really can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage?a large majority of those 7 billion oppose gay marriage. are all of them wrong and you right? What makes you superior? what makes your views better than others? Why do liberals want to dictate how others mus live?
So, you wanting to stop gay people marrying isn't dictating how they live? Come on.
Actually, I've spent a bit of time this year in some of those countries you mention. Not only do they hate gay marriage, or gay people in general, and some would have them executed, but they also believe a woman should do what they want them to do, they believe in polygamy and all sorts of things. So before you start looking for allies, just think who you're siding with.
I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other in a binding contract that will be recognized and have the same rights as a man/woman marriage contract.
The gay agenda is insisting on the word marriage because they believe that it will force societal acceptance that homosexuality is a normal human condition and that kids should be taught that they can go either way.
I was merely pointing out that a majority of the world disagrees with you.
In these cases the so called agenda of the SCOTUS was liberty under the constitution.So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFLThere is no such right, as the right to marry. States can refuse to issue a marriage license under certain circumstances.. Like a drivers license, you're full of it just like the rest of the leftist nutjobs
Wrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.
Google Scholar
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf
Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are
Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.
Like it or not the 14th amendment and subsequent federal civil rights acts have resulted in the federal government taking regulatory supremacy over the States in such matters. Elections matter. If you want us to go back to being more of a republic you're gonna need representatives with that agenda.
If you want to make bigoted hatred of gays the law of the land you are gonna have to show due process. You are gonna have to show the societal harms that befall you poor heteros by allowing two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Cant say as I see gay marriage in there? the amendment was intended to to give full citizenship to blacks, not grant all the states regulatory power to the federal government
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In these cases the so called agenda of the SCOTUS was liberty under the constitution.So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFLWrong. You are clueless. They can't refuse consenting adults. DOMA fell. The new laws against homosexuals will all fall as unconstitutional. The laws against plural marriages will also fall as unconstitutional.
Google Scholar
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/4dbd426fcdde01533f_92m6i6slj.pdf
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/f3c291f543be541150_4dm6b90ql.pdf
Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are
Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.
Like it or not the 14th amendment and subsequent federal civil rights acts have resulted in the federal government taking regulatory supremacy over the States in such matters. Elections matter. If you want us to go back to being more of a republic you're gonna need representatives with that agenda.
If you want to make bigoted hatred of gays the law of the land you are gonna have to show due process. You are gonna have to show the societal harms that befall you poor heteros by allowing two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.
Cant say as I see gay marriage in there? the amendment was intended to to give full citizenship to blacks, not grant all the states regulatory power to the federal government
What do you have against the phrase "homosexual marriage" Why are you literally tied up in knots over the word "marriage"? Is it because you've been given orders by your republican leadership? Why do you think a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage? You really can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage?a large majority of those 7 billion oppose gay marriage. are all of them wrong and you right? What makes you superior? what makes your views better than others? Why do liberals want to dictate how others mus live?
So, you wanting to stop gay people marrying isn't dictating how they live? Come on.
Actually, I've spent a bit of time this year in some of those countries you mention. Not only do they hate gay marriage, or gay people in general, and some would have them executed, but they also believe a woman should do what they want them to do, they believe in polygamy and all sorts of things. So before you start looking for allies, just think who you're siding with.
I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other in a binding contract that will be recognized and have the same rights as a man/woman marriage contract.
The gay agenda is insisting on the word marriage because they believe that it will force societal acceptance that homosexuality is a normal human condition and that kids should be taught that they can go either way.
I was merely pointing out that a majority of the world disagrees with you.
Cant say as I see gay marriage in there? the amendment was intended to to give full citizenship to blacks, not grant all the states regulatory power to the federal government
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
You mean it took them five sections, a ton of words to simply give fully citizenship to black people, really? I don't think so.
One of the main reasons for this was to have black people treated equally. However I don't see the term "blacks" "black people" or anything like that here (if you use something, be careful it bites you back). What I see is "All persons" which means all women, all black people, all Asian people, all gay people, all hermaphrodites, in fact, every single person who can consider themselves a person.
Not unusual either, the founding fathers in 1791 with the Bill of Rights were using all inclusive language. You cannot make out that this is just for black people at all.
homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.
If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.
