View Full Version : Uh Oh
Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?
Thunderknuckles
06-04-2012, 04:06 PM
I'm sure someone will point to the Equal Protection Clause. Other than that, I don't know.
I'm sure someone will point to the Equal Protection Clause. Other than that, I don't know.
Fact is they aren't, the equal protection clause does not apply to lifestyle choices.
Thunderknuckles
06-04-2012, 04:17 PM
Fact is they aren't, the equal protection clause does not apply to lifestyle choices.
Isn't that the basis for the whole gay marriage debate?
Isn't that the basis for the whole gay marriage debate?
Yeppers, but the real issue is whether the clause applies to lifestyle choices you make that break already established laws.
If it applies to gays should it not also apply to polygamists? Marriage where 1 spouse is of age and the other isn't?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 04:53 PM
Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?
Sure.
Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.
Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.
/thread
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 05:26 PM
Sure.
Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.
Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.
/thread
So you're for making bigamy and polygamy legal, so long as it doesn't involve children?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 05:29 PM
So you're for making bigamy and polygamy legal, so long as it doesn't involve children?
I'm for not giving a shit what other people's weirdo religions do as long as it doesn't affect anyone other than those who choose to particpate in it Jim. That's what I've been trying to tell you visa vie gay marriage.
Letting religion X call it marriage doesn't mean YOU have to accept it as marriage, and the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. They should recognize a contract , and no I don't believe one guy should be able to have multiple wives and all their children on welfare either. That is another topic entirely.
Kathianne
06-04-2012, 05:29 PM
So you're for making bigamy and polygamy legal, so long as it doesn't involve children?
Probably. Along with restricting your 2nd amendment rights. He says he's 'conservative' though.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 05:43 PM
Probably. Along with restricting your 2nd amendment rights. He says he's 'conservative' though.
I would argue that following the intent of the COTUS is VERY conservative, but that is a label others have used for me, I refer to myself as a Constitutionalist.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 06:08 PM
I'm for not giving a shit what other people's weirdo religions do as long as it doesn't affect anyone other than those who choose to particpate in it Jim. That's what I've been trying to tell you visa vie gay marriage.
Letting religion X call it marriage doesn't mean YOU have to accept it as marriage, and the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. They should recognize a contract , and no I don't believe one guy should be able to have multiple wives and all their children on welfare either. That is another topic entirely.
I'm all for "live and let live" too, but there's also a point where society says 'enough is enough' and does what is best for society as a whole. Saying, fuck it, and legalizing bigamy and polygamy would be dumb. But for the reasons given, one cannot effectively be for gay marriage and shoot down polygamists.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:15 PM
I'm all for "live and let live" too, but there's also a point where society says 'enough is enough' and does what is best for society as a whole. Saying, fuck it, and legalizing bigamy and polygamy would be dumb. But for the reasons given, one cannot effectively be for gay marriage and shoot down polygamists.
Frankly I don't see how it would be detrimental to society, but the larger issue is that doesn't even matter. I can certainly make the case that allowing ALL citizen to vote is detrimental to society, and I think you'd agree with that? But the fact is detrimental or not, that is how our laws read.
We don't get to negate someone's religious rights simply because we don't like their behavior. But yes, if they are breaking the law then we can do so. And there is your difference if you're looking for one. Polygamy is illegal. Gay marriage is NOT. Even in states where gay marriages can't be performed no one is going to jail if they are in a gay marriage. One CAN however go to jail for polygamy. A slight, but real difference.
And of course OCA's ridiculous notion about children is and always will be illegal.
I think we can tract that even all the way back to Loving. The Court did not rule that anyone HAD to marry blacks and whites, they merely ruled that people couldn't be arrested for doing so.
I disagree with the gay lifestyle completely, but I agree with the COTUS even more. I don't want gays telling me that my religion is wrong, and I won't tell them they are wrong.
So you're for making bigamy and polygamy legal, so long as it doesn't involve children?
I've never seen what exactly is so wrong with Polygamy, i mean, if three consenting adults want to marry, thats considered illegal, but, say for example, a married man cheats on his wife with a mistress, that is legal? Why should the one that involves lying, hurt, and oath breaking be fine, while the other that is a foundation build on trust and love be deemed unacceptable?
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 06:39 PM
I'm not debating the legalities with either of you. This is kinda one of those things that either you think is ok, not ok, or should be ok only because it would be wrong not do. Me, just don't want no part of it. I'm of the belief that kids are best with a mother and a father - not 2 fathers, not 2 mothers, not 1 father and 4 mothers. We all have our opinions, and I'm just of the opinion that these behaviors are the beginning of letting society go further and further down the shithole. If you guys, and others, think there is no reason to prevent this stuff in society, I sure won't be out there with a taser trying to stop you, but I sure as hell won't be one of those trying to push for it and accept it and demand they have rights.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 06:42 PM
I've never seen what exactly is so wrong with Polygamy, i mean, if three consenting adults want to marry, thats considered illegal, but, say for example, a married man cheats on his wife with a mistress, that is legal? Why should the one that involves lying, hurt, and oath breaking be fine, while the other that is a foundation build on trust and love be deemed unacceptable?
Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm not debating the legalities with either of you. This is kinda one of those things that either you think is ok, not ok, or should be ok only because it would be wrong not do. Me, just don't want no part of it. I'm of the belief that kids are best with a mother and a father - not 2 fathers, not 2 mothers, not 1 father and 4 mothers. We all have our opinions, and I'm just of the opinion that these behaviors are the beginning of letting society go further and further down the shithole. If you guys, and others, think there is no reason to prevent this stuff in society, I sure won't be out there with a taser trying to stop you, but I sure as hell won't be one of those trying to push for it and accept it and demand they have rights.
So, you're saying it's okay to take away rights when YOU think it's best for society Jim. Can't you see that? What happens when someone decides telling Jim to shut up is what is best for society and you're looking for the rest of us to insist that you have your rights?
Either we ALL have rights, or none of us do.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 06:47 PM
So, you're saying it's okay to take away rights when YOU think it's best for society Jim. Can't you see that? What happens when someone decides telling Jim to shut up is what is best for society and you're looking for the rest of us to insist that you have your rights?
Either we ALL have rights, or none of us do.
What happens when society makes drug laws, ages of consent, prostitution, speeding law... I can do this all night too. Society has ALWAYS ruled in favor of what is good for society as a whole. It's no different than voting. Society will vote on a HELL of a lot more than just politicians. How DARE they decide what is best for society and their neighborhoods.
Society has already made more than enough laws that I disagree with, and I'm not crying for recourse. I'll even admit that there are a few that while I disagree with them, I know inside they are correct and they aren't things society should be embracing. Having "rights" doesn't mean you should just be able to do whatever the fuck you can think of in this world, and do it without impunity.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 06:51 PM
What happens when society makes drug laws, ages of consent, prostitution, speeding law... I can do this all night too. Society has ALWAYS ruled in favor of what is good for society as a whole. It's no different than voting. Society will vote on a HELL of a lot more than just politicians. How DARE they decide what is best for society and their neighborhoods.
Society has already made more than enough laws that I disagree with, and I'm not crying for recourse. I'll even admit that there are a few that while I disagree with them, I know inside they are correct and they aren't things society should be embracing. Having "rights" doesn't mean you should just be able to do whatever the fuck you can think of in this world, and do it without impunity.
Yes , society has always made laws, but those laws are applied fairly and equitably, or at least they are supposed to be. Using one of your examples. Let me ask you this, would it be alright to make speeding laws apply ONLY to gays?
Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.
Jimbo at least with queers its never ever been about love or marriage as i've stated time and again, here is some ironclad proof:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/julie-hillary-goodridge-t_n_163721.html
ConHog
06-04-2012, 07:14 PM
Jimbo at least with queers its never ever been about love or marriage as i've stated time and again, here is some ironclad proof:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/julie-hillary-goodridge-t_n_163721.html
That proves 2 things.
1. That gays divorce, just like straights
2. You spend way too much time googling gay.
It doesn't however prove that gays don't fall in love.
What happens when society makes drug laws, ages of consent, prostitution, speeding law... I can do this all night too. Society has ALWAYS ruled in favor of what is good for society as a whole. It's no different than voting. Society will vote on a HELL of a lot more than just politicians. How DARE they decide what is best for society and their neighborhoods.
Society has already made more than enough laws that I disagree with, and I'm not crying for recourse. I'll even admit that there are a few that while I disagree with them, I know inside they are correct and they aren't things society should be embracing. Having "rights" doesn't mean you should just be able to do whatever the fuck you can think of in this world, and do it without impunity.
Exactly, we make laws all the time based solely upon what is best for society because a functioning society must set limits or its nothing more than anarchy.
Anyway, the 14th amendment as its currently written and the rights contained within it are not being denied to gay lifestyle choosers, they have access to every right contained in it only they do not have the right to break the laws in states that have banned it. No judge can overturn a ban based upon the equal protection clause and be serious.
That proves 2 things.
1. That gays divorce, just like straights
2. You spend way too much time googling gay.
It doesn't however prove that gays don't fall in love.
Bullshit, you are a fucking moron.
It proves that they got what they wanted politically and now its back to the rampant promiscuity.
Funny, elementary school kids get that but you don't, maybe its the retardation?
Yes , society has always made laws, but those laws are applied fairly and equitably, or at least they are supposed to be. Using one of your examples. Let me ask you this, would it be alright to make speeding laws apply ONLY to gays?
Fairly and equitably to everyone yes but not based upon lifestyle choices that you make that you know going in will have limitations.
Are you really this stupid or are you just shitting us?
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 07:34 PM
Yes , society has always made laws, but those laws are applied fairly and equitably, or at least they are supposed to be. Using one of your examples. Let me ask you this, would it be alright to make speeding laws apply ONLY to gays?
Polygamy laws apply to ALL citizens and it's not a target of one select group. That would be akin to a heroin addict claiming discrimination on drug laws because it targets heroin users.
Speeding laws target speeders. Speeding, and subsequent laws, have been determined to be in societies best interest. Same with prostitution laws. Same with the majority of drug laws. Same with age of consent laws. These are all things that society looks at and deems to be bad for it's citizens, and works to protect them AND the entirety.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 07:35 PM
It doesn't however prove that gays don't fall in love.
Maybe not, but way too many gay people are in it for the perversion. Same as polygamists, it's a perversion.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Exactly, we make laws all the time based solely upon what is best for society because a functioning society must set limits or its nothing more than anarchy.
I still hate you, but perfectly stated!
Some think that ANYTHING goes, so long is it doesn't hurt others and doesn't apply to children. WRONG!
ConHog
06-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Polygamy laws apply to ALL citizens and it's not a target of one select group. That would be akin to a heroin addict claiming discrimination on drug laws because it targets heroin users.
Speeding laws target speeders. Speeding, and subsequent laws, have been determined to be in societies best interest. Same with prostitution laws. Same with the majority of drug laws. Same with age of consent laws. These are all things that society looks at and deems to be bad for it's citizens, and works to protect them AND the entirety.
I conceded that the difference between homosexuality and polygamy is that polygamy is illegal while gay marriage is not. Even in states where game marriages are not performed they are not illegal. That's a significant difference.
Missileman
06-04-2012, 07:40 PM
Bullshit, you are a fucking moron.
It proves that they got what they wanted politically and now its back to the rampant promiscuity.
Funny, elementary school kids get that but you don't, maybe its the retardation?
One couple divorcing proves nothing of the sort.
jimnyc
06-04-2012, 07:44 PM
I conceded that the difference between homosexuality and polygamy is that polygamy is illegal while gay marriage is not. Even in states where game marriages are not performed they are not illegal. That's a significant difference.
But you did state, as per the constitution, that gays had a "right" to marry, and that based on the same argument, polygamists and bigamists should too. Or, as in my opinion, the argument based on the constitution and that's why gays should have the right - that if you argue that, you must also argue that polygamists should enjoy the same rights.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 07:44 PM
One couple divorcing proves nothing of the sort.
Seems to make sense doesn't it.......
One couple divorcing proves nothing of the sort.
Except when they are one of the leaders of the movement and get divorced so quickly thereafter.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 08:51 PM
Except when they are one of the leaders of the movement and get divorced so quickly thereafter.
Lots of people rush into marriage and in fact marry for reasons other than love; it says nothing about whether other couples are in love.
Lots of people rush into marriage and in fact marry for reasons other than love; it says nothing about whether other couples are in love.
Most of them aren't pushing a radical political agenda.
Anyway, anyone else want to weigh in? This fucking imbecile doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:05 PM
Most of them aren't pushing a radical political agenda.
Anyway, anyone else want to weigh in? This fucking imbecile doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Well, at least you know your place.
Well, at least you know your place.
Hello! :laugh2:
:laugh2:
When is your 6th grade graduation?
You are like a little leaguer and i'm fucking Verlander of the Tigers, you have zero chance against me.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Hello! :laugh2:
:laugh2:
When is your 6th grade graduation?
You are like a little leaguer and i'm fucking Verlander of the Tigers, you have zero chance against me.
uh yeah right. The only reason you even bother trying to argue this topic is an attempt to hide your own gay feelings.
You have NO logical reason for opposing churches from marrying gays if they want. "it's icky and bad for society" isn't enough. No matter how loud you scream it.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 09:30 PM
Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?
Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:32 PM
Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?
Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:37 PM
Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?
They don't 'choose' any lifestyle. They just are.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:39 PM
Fact is they aren't, the equal protection clause does not apply to lifestyle choices.
It applies to your lifestyle choice doesn't it? If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it makes sense than heterosexuality is too.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:39 PM
They don't 'choose' any lifestyle. They just are.
IRRELEVANT.
The fact is in THIS country, we have a right to choose to do things that may not be "normal" as long as it harms no one else. When people like OCA start screaming "choice" they are only trying to deflect because they know they can't debate the central argument that the gov't has no right to deny marriage to people.
Can you show where the right to straight marriage is codified in the Constitution?
It isn't just like the equal rights clause doesn't apply, its left up to states and there is no basis for overturning bans based upon COTUS and the 14th.
uh yeah right. The only reason you even bother trying to argue this topic is an attempt to hide your own gay feelings.
You have NO logical reason for opposing churches from marrying gays if they want. "it's icky and bad for society" isn't enough. No matter how loud you scream it.
You don't have a fucking clue.......find where the 14th applies or shut the fuck up.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:44 PM
IRRELEVANT.
The fact is in THIS country, we have a right to choose to do things that may not be "normal" as long as it harms no one else. When people like OCA start screaming "choice" they are only trying to deflect because they know they can't debate the central argument that the gov't has no right to deny marriage to people.
You would be correct. I have not heard one single argument against gay marriage that can't be shot down in flames. The anti gay rabble don't have any argument - and if they think their Bible can make the argument for them, they are kidding themselves.
Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.
Its up to the states dumbass.
Did you and Juanita go get blood tests when you married her? Sure you did, a GOVERNMENT requirement.
When they pronounce you man and wife they say " by the power vested in me by God and the great state of (whatever)".......marriage sure is a government function dumbfuck, state givernment.
God I swear! You are dumber than a box of bricks.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 09:46 PM
It isn't just like the equal rights clause doesn't apply, its left up to states and there is no basis for overturning bans based upon COTUS and the 14th.
You implied straight marriage was guaranteed by COTUS, it's not. If the Feds are going to pass laws that confer benefits based on marriage, they have no basis to do so.
They don't 'choose' any lifestyle. They just are.
Care to share with us and leading scientists and researchers the definitive genetic link you've discovered?
You could get a nobel for that!
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Its up to the states dumbass.
What right do the people in a State have to decide who can and cannot marry?
You would be correct. I have not heard one single argument against gay marriage that can't be shot down in flames. The anti gay rabble don't have any argument - and if they think their Bible can make the argument for them, they are kidding themselves.
OMG where to start...oh christ, you google the lifestyle and its detrimental effects.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:49 PM
You don't have a fucking clue.......find where the 14th applies or shut the fuck up.
You are one illiterate sumbitch. I don't have to show where the 14th applies because my opinion is that the government doesn't have the authority to validate marriages PERIOD.
If some church wants to marry 20 guys into one big gay orgy, the government doesn't have the right to prevent it.
Now when it comes time to honor contracts, that is another matter entirely and THAT is where the 14th applies. A contract is a contract and EVERYONE has the right to have them enforced by law.
You implied straight marriage was guaranteed by COTUS, it's not. If the Feds are going to pass laws that confer benefits based on marriage, they have no basis to do so.
They also then have no basis then for overturning the will of the voting public based upon the 14th.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:50 PM
Care to share with us and leading scientists and researchers the definitive genetic link you've discovered?
You could get a nobel for that!
Its logical. If someone is born straight, because heterosexuality is the 'default' gene, then why would someone choose to be attracted to someone they would never normally be attracted to?
If you think people choose to be gay, do this little experiment. Look up some gay porn, watch it, and try to will an erection. Or try to force yourself to become sexually attracted to one of the participants of the film. If you can, your argument that homosexuality is chosen would be partially correct. If you can't, I win the debate.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:51 PM
They also then have no basis then for overturning the will of the voting public based upon the 14th.
If the public have voted based on their religious beliefs, or because they think gay people are 'icky' then damn right the SCOTUS can overturn their votes.
You are one illiterate sumbitch. I don't have to show where the 14th applies because my opinion is that the government doesn't have the authority to validate marriages PERIOD.
If some church wants to marry 20 guys into one big gay orgy, the government doesn't have the right to prevent it.
Now when it comes time to honor contracts, that is another matter entirely and THAT is where the 14th applies. A contract is a contract and EVERYONE has the right to have them enforced by law.
Not in states where it is banned by law, that contract is null and void. If two queers get hitched in Mass. and move to NC that shit is null and void, no benefits, no nothing.
The 14th doesn't apply to violations of law.
Fuck are you even coherent or what?
fj1200
06-04-2012, 09:53 PM
They also then have no basis then for overturning the will of the voting public based upon the 14th.
Sure they do, Loving says so via incorporation.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:53 PM
Its logical. If someone is born straight, because heterosexuality is the 'default' gene, then why would someone choose to be attracted to someone they would never normally be attracted to?
If you think people choose to be gay, do this little experiment. Look up some gay porn, watch it, and try to will an erection. Or try to force yourself to become sexually attracted to one of the participants of the film. If you can, your argument that homosexuality is chosen would be partially correct. If you can't, I win the debate.
You're new here. Let me clue you in.
OCA does watch gay porn, it DOES turn him on, and that scares him. Thus his over the top outrage about the gay.
It's actually an accepted fact around here
:fu: OCA
If the public have voted based on their religious beliefs, or because they think gay people are 'icky' then damn right the SCOTUS can overturn their votes.
So you are for tyrrany of the SCOTUS over the people?
Should the religious right have their presidential votes 86'd because they vote according to their religious beliefs?
Did you find that definitive genetic link to, how did you put it? "They just are" I think it was.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:55 PM
Not in states where it is banned by law, that contract is null and void. If two queers get hitched in Mass. and move to NC that shit is null and void, no benefits, no nothing.
The 14th doesn't apply to violations of law.
Fuck are you even coherent or what?
I'm not talking about marriage you illiterate fuck.
FJ and I are straight, but if I went to my local courthouse and filed a contract saying "if I die all my worldly goods go to FJ" they would hyave to honor that contract upon my death, just as the same as they would have to honor said document if I left everything to my wife. Whether some church called FJ and I married or not is IRRELEVANT, as it SHOULD be.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:56 PM
You're new here. Let me clue you in.
OCA does watch gay porn, it DOES turn him on, and that scares him. Thus his over the top outrage about the gay.
It's actually an accepted fact around here
:fu: OCA
Which is usually the case for some homosexual men. Their hatred of homosexuals is really self loathing.
I'm not talking about marriage you illiterate fuck.
FJ and I are straight, but if I went to my local courthouse and filed a contract saying "if I die all my worldly goods go to FJ" they would hyave to honor that contract upon my death, just as the same as they would have to honor said document if I left everything to my wife. Whether some church called FJ and I married or not is IRRELEVANT, as it SHOULD be.
Nope, not in states where that weird fucking shit is banned.......you get zilch, nada...you get a big "fuck off queer".
Your first of kin would get that shit..as it should be.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 09:57 PM
So you are for tyrrany of the SCOTUS over the people?
Should the religious right have their presidential votes 86'd because they vote according to their religious beliefs?
Did you find that definitive genetic link to, how did you put it? "They just are" I think it was.
Is there not a law in the US that says people have the freedom to practice their religion? Well, what about freedom FROM religion? What right do you have to force your religion on me?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:58 PM
Which is usually the case for some homosexual men. Their hatred of homosexuals is really self loathing.
Add in a case of little penis syndrome and you know everything you need to know about OCA.
:lol:
Which is usually the case for some homosexual men. Their hatred of homosexuals is really self loathing.
I know some Australians, they are not usually as gullible as you.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 09:58 PM
Is there not a law in the US that says people have the freedom to practice their religion? Well, what about freedom FROM religion? What right do you have to force your religion on me?
You have no such right.
Add in a case of little penis syndrome and you know everything you need to know about OCA.
:lol:
yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is there not a law in the US that says people have the freedom to practice their religion? Well, what about freedom FROM religion? What right do you have to force your religion on me?
Where have I mentioned that religion plays a part in my view?
You are like most, you just jump to that conclusion. Don't feel bad that you made that mistake, happens to the best, not to me, but to many it does.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:02 PM
Not in states where it is banned by law, that contract is null and void. If two queers get hitched in Mass. and move to NC that shit is null and void, no benefits, no nothing.
Not true.
Maryland’s highest court ruled Friday that same-sex couples who legally married in other states can divorce in Maryland, even though it currently has no same-sex marriage provision of its own.The Maryland Court of Appeals ruling was 7-0 and upholds the idea of states recognizing legal actions by other states, known as reciprocity or comity.
Every state gets to determine how much reciprocity it will afford actions in other states. In its ruling, (http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/69a11.pdf)the Maryland court found that the state has historically had a liberal interpretation in recognizing other states’ definition of marriage and that the same standard should be applied to same-sex divorce if the marriage was performed in a state that allowed same-sex marriage.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gay-divorce-20120518,0,3220552.story
Although it may not be recognized in every state.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:03 PM
Nope, not in states where that weird fucking shit is banned.......you get zilch, nada...you get a big "fuck off queer".
Your first of kin would get that shit..as it should be.
By your standards if a state chose to enslave a minority, hey too bad the people voted for it.
Not true.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gay-divorce-20120518,0,3220552.story
Although it may not be recognized in every state.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You do know that queer marriage is on the ballot here in Nov., right? All that if the ban passes will be null and void.
By your standards if a state chose to enslave a minority, hey too bad the people voted for it.
Wow..........reaching are we?
I accept your white flag.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:07 PM
Nope, not in states where that weird fucking shit is banned.......you get zilch, nada...you get a big "fuck off queer".
Your first of kin would get that shit..as it should be.
You don't have wills in your state? Or Transfer-on-Death designations?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:07 PM
Wow..........reaching are we?
I accept your white flag.
You think it's a reach to say that if you let the government take rights from some that they could also take rights from others?
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:08 PM
You do know that queer marriage is on the ballot here in Nov., right? All that if the ban passes will be null and void.
No it won't.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:09 PM
You don't have wills in your state? Or Transfer-on-Death designations?
I would say either
A) he trusts the government to dole out his property fairly upon his death
or
B) he doesn't have any property and so doesn't care.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:09 PM
I know some Australians, they are not usually as gullible as you.
I think you mean intelligent, because from where I am sitting, you are being owned right now.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:10 PM
You do know that queer marriage is on the ballot here in Nov., right? All that if the ban passes will be null and void.
If the ban passes the SCOTUS will overturn it, as you well know. It is unconstitutional to deny equal rights to couples based on gender.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:10 PM
I think you mean intelligent, because from where I am sitting, you are being owned right now.
OCA being owned his nothing new.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:12 PM
OCA being owned his nothing new.
I'm enjoying it, actually. I love having someone with no argument at all to back up his opinions.
You don't have wills in your state? Or Transfer-on-Death designations?
Sure, but that shit gets cloudy when it comes to queers and marriage.
Really there is not anything that can be done if two cocksuckers want to give their shit to each other but I would like to see a "kin first" law or something to that effect when it comes to wills, medical decisions and such........as it should be.
If the ban passes the SCOTUS will overturn it, as you well know. It is unconstitutional to deny equal rights to couples based on gender.
Can you show me where in COTUS?
I think you mean intelligent, because from where I am sitting, you are being owned right now.
How so? Did you find that genetic link yet?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:18 PM
Sure, but that shit gets cloudy when it comes to queers and marriage.
Really there is not anything that can be done if two cocksuckers want to give their shit to each other but I would like to see a "kin first" law or something to that effect when it comes to wills, medical decisions and such........as it should be.
How about this. You designate your shit to who you want and mind your own fucking business about who other people designate for their shit. As it should be.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:18 PM
Can you show me where in COTUS?
It's the other way around stupid. Show us where MARRIAGE is in the COTUS.
You think it's a reach to say that if you let the government take rights from some that they could also take rights from others?
As in slavery thats exactly what i'm saying you fucking halfwit.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:19 PM
Can you show me where in COTUS?
I believe it may be the 5th Amendment. I am not an American, so my knowledge of your constitution is a little rusty.
It's the other way around stupid. Show us where MARRIAGE is in the COTUS.
Its not dumbfuck, its up to the states and there is no basis in the COTUS for overturning state bans.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:21 PM
Sure, but that shit gets cloudy when it comes to queers and marriage.
It doesn't really, it's nothing more than contract law except for the benefits that are given to straight couples over gay such as transferring property.
Really there is not anything that can be done if two cocksuckers want to give their shit to each other but I would like to see a "kin first" law or something to that effect when it comes to wills, medical decisions and such........as it should be.
So now you want the government to interject itself even more in some misguided "caretaker" role and investigate every transfer of property that doesn't involve husband and wife? I hope you've never claimed the small government mantel.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:21 PM
How so? Did you find that genetic link yet?
Have you watched that gay pron video and willed yourself an erection yet, or are you too afraid to take me up on my challenge?
I believe it may be the 5th Amendment. I am not an American, so my knowledge of your constitution is a little rusty.
Then why in the fuck are you in a constitutional thread on the 14th AMENDMENT.
OWNED.
5TH AMEDMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:22 PM
Its not dumbfuck, its up to the states and there is no basis in the COTUS for overturning state bans.
:cough: Loving :cough:
Have you watched that gay pron video and willed yourself an erection yet, or are you too afraid to take me up on my challenge?
Have you stopped shrimpin' yet?
You don't want to go down this road with me.................
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:23 PM
Its not dumbfuck, its up to the states and there is no basis in the COTUS for overturning state bans.
It's up to the states? Says who? Show me where that is enumerated in the COTUS.
:cough: Loving :cough:
Wrong...interracial marriage. Nothing at all to do with queers and marriage.
Interracial marriage......people born that way(skin color)........Gay marriage..lifestyle choice, doesn't apply to lifestyle choices.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:25 PM
Have you stopped shrimpin' yet?
You don't want to go down this road with me.................
Sure I do, but it looks like you are too chicken.
It's up to the states? Says who? Show me where that is enumerated in the COTUS.
Where did you get your marriage license from?
:laugh2:
:laugh2:
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:26 PM
Wrong...interracial marriage. Nothing at all to do with queers and marriage.
Interracial marriage......people born that way(skin color)........Gay marriage..lifestyle choice, doesn't apply to lifestyle choices.
So anyone who chooses their own lifestyle shouldn't be permitted to marry?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:27 PM
Then why in the fuck are you in a constitutional thread on the 14th AMENDMENT.
OWNED.
5TH AMEDMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2:
Fuck, I was way off.:laugh2: Must learn to google better.
Sure I do, but it looks like you are too chicken.
Too chicken to play your stupid fucking game?
Grow up Nancy.
I mean really, you are starting to make CH look intelligent.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:28 PM
Wrong...interracial marriage. Nothing at all to do with queers and marriage.
Interracial marriage......people born that way(skin color)........Gay marriage..lifestyle choice, doesn't apply to lifestyle choices.
No, no, just the state deciding which relationships that they'll favor today. :rolleyes:
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:28 PM
Wrong...interracial marriage. Nothing at all to do with queers and marriage.
Interracial marriage......people born that way(skin color)........Gay marriage..lifestyle choice, doesn't apply to lifestyle choices.
Prove it's a choice.
Hint you never will and it is actually my opinion that it is.
Fuck, I was way off.:laugh2: Must learn to google better.
Or pick better threads, you are in way over your head. Stick to fucking wallabies or checking dudes out in speedos down there.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:29 PM
Where did you get your marriage license from?
:laugh2:
:laugh2:
I got it from where I had to, that doesn't mean I think they have the right to require it.
And to illustrate my point, many states have common law marriages which require no such license.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:29 PM
Prove it's a choice.
Hint you never will and it is actually my opinion that it is.
??? You think people choose to be gay?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:30 PM
Or pick better threads, you are in way over your head. Stick to fucking wallabies or checking dudes out in speedos down there.
The subject of gay marriage is actually one of my favorite subjects to debate. You are part of the reason why.
Prove it's a choice.
Hint you never will and it is actually my opinion that it is.
Don't need to prove it, its been the accepted view for centuries and is supported by rudimentary biology, its up to the ones who want to change things 180 that its not a choice.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:32 PM
??? You think people choose to be gay?
My opinion is yes, the FACT however is that it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We're Americans and we by God have a right to be as disgusting and perverted as we choose to be as long as we are not interfering with the rights of others.
The subject of gay marriage is actually one of my favorite subjects to debate. You are part of the reason why.
Well you are doing a shitty job of it.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:33 PM
Well you are doing a shitty job of it.
Says the bloke who can't even support his own arguments.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:33 PM
My opinion is yes, the FACT however is that it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We're Americans and we by God have a right to be as disgusting and perverted as we choose to be as long as we are not interfering with the rights of others.
Disagree with you on the choice aspect of it, but agree with the rest.
My opinion is yes, the FACT however is that it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We're Americans and we by God have a right to be as disgusting and perverted as we choose to be as long as we are not interfering with the rights of others.
And by your own acknowledgement long ago queers in fact did and do interfere with the rights of others.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:34 PM
Don't need to prove it, its been the accepted view for centuries and is supported by rudimentary biology, its up to the ones who want to change things 180 that its not a choice.
Wrong.
If I want to take away your right to vote based on my opinion that you're an idiot then it I have to prove you're an idiot. I don't get to say "hey OCA prove you're not an idiot, b/c the accepted view is that you're an idiot"
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:34 PM
And by your own acknowledgement long ago queers in fact did and do interfere with the rights of others.
Funny enough, its what many Christians do today.
Disagree with you on the choice aspect of it, but agree with the rest.
This will be the 4th time i've asked and you've avoided it each time so i'll try a different approach........what basis do you have for believing its NOT a choice?
Wrong.
If I want to take away your right to vote based on my opinion that you're an idiot then it I have to prove you're an idiot. I don't get to say "hey OCA prove you're not an idiot, b/c the accepted view is that you're an idiot"
Nope, i'm right.
I'm not the one allocating a law change, the burden of proof is upon them.
We aren't taking any rights from them.
Funny enough, its what many Christians do today.
So you are a christianophobe?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:38 PM
This will be the 4th time i've asked and you've avoided it each time so i'll try a different approach........what basis do you have for believing its NOT a choice?
Already answered. Not my fault that you ignore it.
When did you choose to be straight?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:39 PM
Nope, i'm right.
I'm not the one allocating a law change, the burden of proof is upon them.
We aren't taking any rights from them.
You're the one advocating preventing someone from exercising their first amendment rights.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:39 PM
So you are a christianophobe?
No, I am opposed to people forcing their views on others. I am opposed to people wanting to ban something that has no effect on them.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:40 PM
Nope, i'm right.
I'm not the one allocating a law change, the burden of proof is upon them.
We aren't taking any rights from them.
Yeah, and slaves never had any rights taken from them, either.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:40 PM
No, I am opposed to people forcing their views on others. I am opposed to people wanting to ban something that has no effect on them.
Not all Christians are that way. So don't group us all together. Thanks
Already answered. Not my fault that you ignore it.
When did you choose to be straight?
No you didn't.
Didn't choose it, every human being is born with an innate atteaction to the opposite sex.....biology 101.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:42 PM
Not all Christians are that way. So don't group us all together. Thanks
Not grouping you all together, Con. Don't worry.
You're the one advocating preventing someone from exercising their first amendment rights.
Show me where in the first amendment marriage is addressed.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:42 PM
No you didn't.
Didn't choose it, every human being is born with an innate atteaction to the opposite sex.....biology 101.
Then why would a straight person choose to have a relationship with, and marry someone they were not attracted to?
Then why would a straight person choose to have a relationship with, and marry someone they were not attracted to?
Why do people choose to shoot heroin knowing they will end up a homeless junkie? People make stupid choices all the time and laws should not be changed based upon lifestyle choices stupid or otherwise.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:46 PM
Show me where in the first amendment marriage is addressed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution ipso facto the government can't interfere. SIMPLE as that.
A non religious person shouldn't care about being married as long as they can have contract law enforce any contract they choose to enter, and when it comes to contract law the 14th applies and the government can't discriminate.
You're my bitch in this thread, but then again aren't you always; but please continue to fight the stupid fight.
DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 10:47 PM
Btw, while cheating on your spouse is legal, it can still have ramifications. You can lose support and a lot more in divorce proceedings and many pre-nups protect against cheating as well. And I also don't think polygamy is built on trust and love. Many say the same about homosexuals. Many of them see both of them as a path to their perversions. If someone was TRULY in it for trust and love, they would do so with one partner - or they're not in love.
OR, they have a different definition of love than you do, Jim. This is where a lot of hypocrisy does jump up, cause see if I've got this straight: You love and trust your kid, so that means you don't love and trust your wife? Or do you not love your kids, cause your wife got there first? If you were married previously, doesn't that mean that by the definition, you can't love or trust whichever woman you end up with next? How much love and trust can you give people before you run out? Is there a ration in effect?
Okay, now, I don't even vaguely pretend to be someone who would go for polygamy, or even polyamory. I've done the threesome thing before, and it's just not all it's cracked up to be. I will focus to focus on mastering one woman, but I don't see why everyone has to follow that lead. You claim morality, Jim, but even the bible has polygamy, by more than one servant of God.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:47 PM
Why do people choose to shoot heroin knowing they will end up a homeless junkie? People make stupid choices all the time and laws should not be changed based upon lifestyle choices stupid or otherwise.
Apples and oranges. You are better than that.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:47 PM
Then why would a straight person choose to have a relationship with, and marry someone they were not attracted to?
who gives a shit? Don't let OCA deflect, he damn well knows it doesn't matter choice or not. Stop arguing with him about it.
Yeah, and slaves never had any rights taken from them, either.
Oh man....they all try the same ol' tired arguments.
I can almost argue both sides, every single one of ya always try that last desperation half courter with slavery or interracial marriage and never hit the rim.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:48 PM
Apples and oranges. You are better than that.
No, he really isn't.
who gives a shit? Don't let OCA deflect, he damn well knows it doesn't matter choice or not. Stop arguing with him about it.
Deflect? lol.....it sure as fuck does matter, its the whole cruxt(sp?) of the matter.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:49 PM
who gives a shit? Don't let OCA deflect, he damn well knows it doesn't matter choice or not. Stop arguing with him about it.
Con, the choice point is an important one to me, as I do not believe people choose to be gay. Most of the time the gay marriage argument ends up discussing choice anyway.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:50 PM
No, he really isn't.
I try to see the good in everyone. Call it a fault of mine.
Apples and oranges. You are better than that.
Nope...apples and apples.
Don't dismiss things that disprove you.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:51 PM
Deflect? lol.....it sure as fuck does matter, its the whole cruxt(sp?) of the matter.
Okay, lets go in another direction. What do you believe the purpose of marriage is?
No, he really isn't.
I'm a better man than you could ever aspire to be.......for 1 i'm not a proven liar.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 10:51 PM
Oh man....they all try the same ol' tired arguments.
I can almost argue both sides, every single one of ya always try that last desperation half courter with slavery or interracial marriage and never hit the rim.
I'm not even sure you can argue one side.
Okay, lets go in another direction. What do you believe the purpose of marriage is?
Doesn't matter................don't deflect when you are on the ropes.
I'm not even sure you can argue one side.
I'm not even sure yu can form a coherent thought without speaking in rhyme. Most of your posts are undecipherable, guess yiu think it makes you look smarter...it doesn't.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:54 PM
I'm a better man than you could ever aspire to be.......for 1 i'm not a proven liar.
Irrelevant and untrue.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 10:55 PM
Doesn't matter................don't deflect when you are on the ropes.
If marriage has no purpose, there is no reason to deny it to gay couples.
If marriage has no purpose, there is no reason for anyone to get married at all.
Have I won the debate yet?
Irrelevant and untrue.
Irrelevant yes.........as true as the Treaty Of Versailles.
Ask me if you don't know what that is.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm not even sure yu can form a coherent thought without speaking in rhyme. Most of your posts are undecipherable, guess yiu think it makes you look smarter...it doesn't.
You aren't even in the same universe as FJ when it comes to debating, shut the fuck up.
And FJ don't get it twisted, being worlds better than OCA at debating isn't that great of an accomplishment. :laugh2:
If marriage has no purpose, there is no reason to deny it to gay couples.
If marriage has no purpose, there is no reason for anyone to get married at all.
Have I won the debate yet?
No, you are in the 15th round, way behind in points, you need a knockout....you need the genetic link.
Marriage purpose has no bearing on this thread.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 10:58 PM
Irrelevant yes.........as true as the Treaty Of Versailles.
Ask me if you don't know what that is.
OCA you lied right on this board less than two hours ago. It's easily seen by any that look. That renders your statement untrue even if you COULD show where I'm a proven liar, which you can't.
You aren't even in the same universe as FJ when it comes to debating, shut the fuck up.
And FJ don't get it twisted, being worlds better than OCA at debating isn't that great of an accomplishment. :laugh2:
You aren't even in the same universe as Virgil..............shut the fuck up hillbilly.
I'm the man.
DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 10:59 PM
Doesn't matter................don't deflect when you are on the ropes.
Nell, you may be wondering what it is OCA is doing. In fact, this statement above is a deflection of your question, yes, by accusing you of deflecting. OCA does this because he can't actually answer your question without seriously damaging his one-trick pony argument style, and so he'll try some lame stunt now to claim "victory" over you, because he has now realized that you're not getting in the mud with him, and that there are in fact huge holes in his argument that he doesn't want to have to deal with.
This is basically how he remains "undefeated" in debate, in the same way that a boxer who is beginning to lose a match my "sprain" his ankle, and just deny a rematch because he doesn't want to lose.
OCA you lied right on this board less than two hours ago. It's easily seen by any that look. That renders your statement untrue even if you COULD show where I'm a proven liar, which you can't.
Show me where.
I can go right to yours......the word "nigger" ring a bell?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:00 PM
No, you are in the 15th round, way behind in points, you need a knockout....you need the genetic link.
Marriage purpose has no bearing on this thread.
Genetics is irrelevant.
Nell, you may be wondering what it is OCA is doing. In fact, this statement above is a deflection of your question, yes, by accusing you of deflecting. OCA does this because he can't actually answer your question without seriously damaging his one-trick pony argument style, and so he'll try some lame stunt now to claim "victory" over you, because he has now realized that you're not getting in the mud with him, and that there are in fact huge holes in his argument that he doesn't want to have to deal with.
This is basically how he remains "undefeated" in debate, in the same way that a boxer who is beginning to lose a match my "sprain" his ankle, and just deny a rematch because he doesn't want to lose.
Point out the holes.
Genetics is irrelevant.
No its not, its their whole basis, its their everything.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm not even sure yu can form a coherent thought without speaking in rhyme. Most of your posts are undecipherable, guess yiu think it makes you look smarter...it doesn't.
Is that why you never acknowledge that you're wrong? Because every position you've taken has been shown false. I'll see about stupiding it down for you though; for which elementary school level should I aim which elementary school level should I be aiming for?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:02 PM
Point out the holes.
It would take me hours to quote all the posts you have made in this thread.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:02 PM
Show me where.
I can go right to yours......the word "nigger" ring a bell?
What about the word nigger? I use it, and I don't deny it. As for yours, you know where it is, where you claimed I broke a rule............. LOL
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:03 PM
No its not, its their whole basis, its their everything.
I have given you my argument, it is not my fault if you can't refute it. Stop saying my argument is irrelevant when you are really saying 'I have nothing to refute your argument so I am just going to dodge'.
Is that why you never acknowledge that you're wrong? Because every position you've taken has been shown false. I'll see about stupiding it down for you though; for which elementary school level should I aim which elementary school level should I be aiming for?
I'm not the only one who has that opinion of you, I won't speak for them.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:04 PM
Is that why you never acknowledge that you're wrong? Because every position you've taken has been shown false. I'll see about stupiding it down for you though; for which elementary school level should I aim which elementary school level should I be aiming for?
gay is choice
choice is bad
oca kill bad man
:lol:
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:06 PM
I'm not the only one who has that opinion of you, I won't speak for them.
ah the old
" people message me all the time telling me they dont like ______________ either and they like me to get him/her" routine.
Prepare yourself Nell, after spanking OCA's ass around the board for awhile you to will be hit with this one. Don't listen to it.
I have given you my argument, it is not my fault if you can't refute it. Stop saying my argument is irrelevant when you are really saying 'I have nothing to refute your argument so I am just going to dodge'.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't even know what amendment we were talking about.
I know, I know, your argument is moral relativity..............here do this..........google the percentage of population that queer lifestyle choicers are then google new AIDS cases for that group through the CDC and tell me what you come up with.
Then google how AIDS made its way into the national blood supply back in the early days.......let me know what you find out.
I've refuted everything, you simply do not want to acknowledge it.
ah the old
" people message me all the time telling me they dont like ______________ either and they like me to get him/her" routine.
Prepare yourself Nell, after spanking OCA's ass around the board for awhile you to will be hit with this one. Don't listen to it.
It ain't old Juan.
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:09 PM
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't even know what amendment we were talking about.
I know, I know, your argument is moral relativity..............here do this..........google the percentage of population that queer lifestyle choicers are then google new AIDS cases for that group through the CDC and tell me what you come up with.
Then google how AIDS made its way into the national blood supply back in the early days.......let me know what you find out.
I've refuted everything, you simply do not want to acknowledge it.
You are aware that AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals, right?
Then again, maybe you don't know.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:09 PM
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't even know what amendment we were talking about.
I know, I know, your argument is moral relativity..............here do this..........google the percentage of population that queer lifestyle choicers are then google new AIDS cases for that group through the CDC and tell me what you come up with.
Then google how AIDS made its way into the national blood supply back in the early days.......let me know what you find out.
I've refuted everything, you simply do not want to acknowledge it.
okay , i gotta ask, do u REALLY think that gay people are going to stop having sex if you don't let them marry? :lol:
fj1200
06-04-2012, 11:10 PM
I'm not the only one who has that opinion of you, I won't speak for them.
Apparently you will... whoever "them" is. :rolleyes:
You are aware that AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals, right?
Then again, maybe you don't know.
I hate to make you look like a fool but..............................
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:12 PM
Apparently you will... whoever "them" is.
I think "them" is all OCA's little gay boyfriends he's going to have gay sex with after rampaging that gay marriage is BAD BAD BAD on the internets.
I've actually heard of the phenomenon before married men who fuck guys on the side and then say that isn't gay.
okay , i gotta ask, do u REALLY think that gay people are going to stop having sex if you don't let them marry? :lol:
I don't give a fuck if they stop or not...........but no "special rights" granted to them.
No wills of the people overturned when there is no basis in the COTUS for the overturn.
I think "them" is all OCA's little gay boyfriends he's going to have gay sex with after rampaging that gay marriage is BAD BAD BAD on the internets.
I've actually heard of the phenomenon before married men who fuck guys on the side and then say that isn't gay.
yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 11:13 PM
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't even know what amendment we were talking about.
I know, I know, your argument is moral relativity..............here do this..........google the percentage of population that queer lifestyle choicers are then google new AIDS cases for that group through the CDC and tell me what you come up with.
Then google how AIDS made its way into the national blood supply back in the early days.......let me know what you find out.
I've refuted everything, you simply do not want to acknowledge it.
So, see if I have this rationale of your straight: The Native Americans should commit genocide against the European descendants who brought so much plague and death to their door?
Well, this is pretty much the most civil it's going to get from here on in, so looking over the posts, I'm calling the win for Nell, who at no point required arguments like the above to try, and fail, to gain an advantage. Anyone second this judgment?
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:15 PM
I don't give a fuck if they stop or not...........but no "special rights" granted to them.
No wills of the people overturned when there is no basis in the COTUS for the overturn.
Equal rights are not special rights.
So, see if I have this rationale of your straight: The Native Americans should commit genocide against the European descendants who brought so much plague and death to their door?
Well, this is pretty much the most civil it's going to get from here on in, so looking over the posts, I'm calling the win for Nell, who at no point required arguments like the above to try, and fail, to gain an advantage. Anyone second this judgment?
Considering your background with your father you won't mind if I consider your judgement tainted, right?
gabosaurus
06-04-2012, 11:16 PM
Can someone show me where individuals who choose the homosexual lifestyle are at birth denied any rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment?
Can you show me where individuals who choose to have cancer or some other bodily or mental defect are denied any rights? Obviously it is not genetics. :rolleyes:
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:16 PM
I don't give a fuck if they stop or not...........but no "special rights" granted to them.
No wills of the people overturned when there is no basis in the COTUS for the overturn.
letting them marry who they want isn't a special right you fool
and if you dont' give a fuck, then why even bring AIDS into the discussion except as a further deflection.
Oh, and here's a hint you moron. The Constitution's main purpose is to prevent the many from taking liberty from the few, and no matter how many times you deny it religious liberty is guaranteed to all, even them icky gays.
Equal rights are not special rights.
I know you are an Aussie and all but they are not being denied any rights that haven't already posesssed from birth.
Can you show me where individuals who choose to have cancer or some other bodily or mental defect are denied any rights? Obviously it is not genetics. :rolleyes:
Again......those genetic links have been found to a certain extent.
DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 11:18 PM
Considering your background with your father you won't mind if I consider your judgement tainted, right?
lol, Oh, I know you're not man enough to accept judgment. You notice I never asked if you thought it was fair? No, you'll just use another lame excuse to call it a win, cause you don't have the balls admit someone is a better debater, a better anything really, than you are. You tiny, fragile ego would shatter.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:19 PM
Again......those genetic links have been found to a certain extent.
IRRELEVANT
Unless you can show me where in the COTUS anyone has the right to deny constitutional protections for anyone who chooses to do something yucky.......
DragonStryk72
06-04-2012, 11:19 PM
Again......those genetic links have been found to a certain extent.
OH? So now it's "a certain extent" is it? Uh oh, Gabs, better run, you're start to puncture holes in the argument. You know what this means.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:21 PM
lol, Oh, I know you're not man enough to accept judgment. You notice I never asked if you thought it was fair? No, you'll just use another lame excuse to call it a win, cause you don't have the balls admit someone is a better debater, a better anything really, than you are. You tiny, fragile ego would shatter.
You know he's sitting at home right now stamping his little feet and screaming at his wife that he is a God and we all should bow down to him. If I were her I'd probably go visit my mother right now before the sumbitch starts taking out his frustration on her.
letting them marry who they want isn't a special right you fool
and if you dont' give a fuck, then why even bring AIDS into the discussion except as a further deflection.
Oh, and here's a hint you moron. The Constitution's main purpose is to prevent the many from taking liberty from the few, and no matter how many times you deny it religious liberty is guaranteed to all, even them icky gays.
Nope............COTUS doesn't cover queer marriage in anyway, shape or form. It doesn't even address majority vs minority unless you are implying now that the federalist papers are part of COTUS.
Again, remember what i've said about society and limits Gomer.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:21 PM
OH? So now it's "a certain extent" is it? Uh oh, Gabs, better run, you're start to puncture holes in the argument. You know what this means.
It means OCA will start posting that others have sent him messages that they don't like Gabby either and it's his duty to "get her?"
Nell's Room
06-04-2012, 11:22 PM
I know you are an Aussie and all but they are not being denied any rights that haven't already posesssed from birth.
They don't have the right to marry the person they love - like you do.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 11:22 PM
I don't give a fuck if they stop or not...........but no "special rights" granted to them.
No wills of the people overturned when there is no basis in the COTUS for the overturn.
Not so long as your "rights" are preferred?
I know you are an Aussie and all but they are not being denied any rights that haven't already posesssed from birth.
Where is straight marraige guaranteed in the COTUS? Or did I miss where straight marriage was added to life/liberty/property?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:23 PM
Nope............COTUS doesn't cover marriage in anyway, shape or form. It doesn't even address majority vs minority unless you are implying now that the federalist papers are part of COTUS.
Again, remember what i've said about society and limits Gomer.
I fixed that for you
Now please explain how you believe the government has the right to define marriage.
lol, Oh, I know you're not man enough to accept judgment. You notice I never asked if you thought it was fair? No, you'll just use another lame excuse to call it a win, cause you don't have the balls admit someone is a better debater, a better anything really, than you are. You tiny, fragile ego would shatter.
Nope, i've refuted every argument of his................all he can do is cry the little "it don't hurt anyone"............he needs more beef than that.
Hint hint........that beef doesn't exist.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:24 PM
Nope, i've refuted every argument of his................all he can do is cry the little "it don't hurt anyone"............he needs more beef than that.
Hint hint........that beef doesn't exist.
You haven't refuted jack moron.
Your argument is and always has been
"gay sex is icky and I don't like it, so I should get to decide what they can do, because I am God"
IOW you're pathetic.
Not so long as your "rights" are preferred?
Where is straight marraige guaranteed in the COTUS? Or did I miss where straight marriage was added to life/liberty/property?
Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?
The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.
You haven't refuted jack moron.
Your argument is and always has been
"gay sex is icky and I don't like it, so I should get to decide what they can do, because I am God"
IOW you're pathetic.
Oh lord........this is tiring.
Your getting whooped.........show me where under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment queer marriage is addressed.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:29 PM
Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?
The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.
I got news for you gays have been around since BC to.
As for what the founders could have imagined. `I think they absolutely agreed that marriage was none of the government's god damned business else they would have put it in the fucking COTUS. Notice they prepared for everything else
Now it is true, that you COULD absolutely get a USCOTUS amendment banning gay marriage and them ol nasty queers would be shit out of luck, hell we could legalize enslaving them niggers again if we could get the votes. But a STATE can not do it on it's own, maybe you remember the Civil War?
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:30 PM
Oh lord........this is tiring.
Your getting whooped.........show me where under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment queer marriage is addressed.
show me where in the 14th straight marriage is addressed you idiot.
Oh, and well all KNOW who is getting slapped around like a 12 year old girl trying to take on Mike Tyson in his prime.
fj1200
06-04-2012, 11:35 PM
Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?
As soon as you show where EVERY member of EVERY society has happily engaged in straight marriage you may have the point. Until then you can acknowledge that society has changed to a point where individuals are not required to get married and have kids for the mere act of survival.
The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.
Mayhaps they merely acknowledge that the Federal government was not required to have purview over such trivialities.
ConHog
06-04-2012, 11:36 PM
As soon as you show where EVERY member of EVERY society has happily engaged in straight marriage you may have the point. Until then you can acknowledge that society has changed to a point where individuals are not required to get married and have kids for the mere act of survival.
Mayhaps they merely acknowledge that the Federal government was not required to have purview over such trivialities.
Guess they weren't as brilliant as OCA is.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 09:52 AM
You would be correct. I have not heard one single argument against gay marriage that can't be shot down in flames. The anti gay rabble don't have any argument - and if they think their Bible can make the argument for them, they are kidding themselves.
That's because the argument doesn't suit what YOU believe. Quite frankly, I have heard great arguments from both sides. If I were to take 90% of the gay marriage debating reasons, I can then apply it to so many other sick things for society and the argument would remain the same. But I'm a betting man, and I'm betting that the "So long as it doesn't hurt anyone" argument will go down the drain awfully quickly.
That's because the argument doesn't suit what YOU believe. Quite frankly, I have heard great arguments from both sides. If I were to take 90% of the gay marriage debating reasons, I can then apply it to so many other sick things for society and the argument would remain the same. But I'm a betting man, and I'm betting that the "So long as it doesn't hurt anyone" argument will go down the drain awfully quickly.
Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 09:55 AM
Sure.
Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.
Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.
/thread
Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.
You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 09:58 AM
Sure they do, Loving says so via incorporation.
I don't believe so myself, as Loving had nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or marriages that were not recognized. You can't unilaterally toss in more plaintiffs and claim they are covered.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:01 AM
If the ban passes the SCOTUS will overturn it, as you well know. It is unconstitutional to deny equal rights to couples based on gender.
Denying something based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE is NOT denying someone something based on their gender.
You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.
Yep, out of 1 side of their mouth they claim its not covered in COTUS but when a state votes to ban they will say it violates COTUS..........quite a dishonest tactic.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:03 AM
It's the other way around stupid. Show us where MARRIAGE is in the COTUS.
It's not, but then when people vote in the states, then others shouldn't say it's a constitutional violation, cause it's not.
Denying something based on a LIFESTYLE CHOICE is NOT denying someone something based on their gender.
Correct, not so sure why thats so hard for people to understand. Hit em on the polygamists thing, that sends them into a dither.
It's not, but then when people vote in the states, then others shouldn't say it's a constitutional violation, cause it's not.
:clap:
:clap:
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:05 AM
I believe it may be the 5th Amendment. I am not an American, so my knowledge of your constitution is a little rusty.
Wow, you're talking as if you know the subject, and others being "owned". You might be better off taking advantage of the 5th amendment! LOL
:cough: Loving :cough:
Can you show me where Loving has ever been successfully used as for gay marriage? Many seem to think this 30-40yr old case speaks for gay marriage, and I don't believe it does. But if a superior or supreme court has used it as precedent and basis to overturn a law, then that's different...
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:07 AM
The subject of gay marriage is actually one of my favorite subjects to debate. You are part of the reason why.
You are like an American liberal though and basing everything you say on emotion and offering zilch in the facts department.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Funny enough, its what many Christians do today.
Care to expand on this? How are Christians interfering with the rights of others?
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:12 AM
Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.
Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.
You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.
Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:13 AM
OR, they have a different definition of love than you do, Jim. This is where a lot of hypocrisy does jump up, cause see if I've got this straight: You love and trust your kid, so that means you don't love and trust your wife? Or do you not love your kids, cause your wife got there first? If you were married previously, doesn't that mean that by the definition, you can't love or trust whichever woman you end up with next? How much love and trust can you give people before you run out? Is there a ration in effect?
Okay, now, I don't even vaguely pretend to be someone who would go for polygamy, or even polyamory. I've done the threesome thing before, and it's just not all it's cracked up to be. I will focus to focus on mastering one woman, but I don't see why everyone has to follow that lead. You claim morality, Jim, but even the bible has polygamy, by more than one servant of God.
Loving a child and your wife is MUCH different than loving multiple wives and having sex with all of them. There is NO hypocrisy in my views whatsoever. There's a reason that bigamy and polygamy are outlawed. If you guys feel so strongly that homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted as the norm, so be it.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:15 AM
You are like an American liberal though and basing everything you say on emotion and offering zilch in the facts department.
On this particular topic OCA, and to a lesser extent YOU, are certainly doing that.
Marriage is a religious institution PERIOD. You can NOT argue that point.
The point you would have to argue is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have civil contracts with each other, and in fact OCA flat said he would like as much, and THAT would be in violation of the 14th amendment.
Regulating MARRIAGE however is a violation of the first amendment, regardless of who's marriage the government is regulating.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:15 AM
Con, the choice point is an important one to me, as I do not believe people choose to be gay. Most of the time the gay marriage argument ends up discussing choice anyway.
And others feel it is a choice. Until such time that a gene or something is found that proves there is no choice, I think it's a learned behavior. I suppose my belief is just as valid as yours, only I don't have the burden of proof like you do, the proof that no one can seem to locate.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:16 AM
Loving a child and your wife is MUCH different than loving multiple wives and having sex with all of them. There is NO hypocrisy in my views whatsoever. There's a reason that bigamy and polygamy are outlawed. If you guys feel so strongly that homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted as the norm, so be it.
Who the hell said that? Neither will EVER be accepted as the norm, however the first amendment does not only apply to the norm.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:18 AM
And others feel it is a choice. Until such time that a gene or something is found that proves there is no choice, I think it's a learned behavior. I suppose my belief is just as valid as yours, only I don't have the burden of proof like you do, the proof that no one can seem to locate.
Myself I believe the bisexual people who switch back and forth like you or I would change socks destroys the entire "they were born that way" argument. However, it is irrelevant to THIS discussion. You have a right to do such things if you so choose.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:20 AM
You are aware that AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals, right?
Then again, maybe you don't know.
I hate to make you look like a fool but..............................
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
I was about to reply when I saw your link to the stats. What is the percentage of gays in America? And they create way more than double of the total new incidents of HIV? It appears that aids is NOT more prevalent amongst Heteros.
Nell, being SO off target, I gotta ask - WHERE do you get your information from?
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Equal rights are not special rights.
Man cannot marry man.
Woman cannot marry woman.
Man can marry woman.
Woman can marry man.
Those "rights" are equal to 100% of US citizens.
Besides, many state this is outside the constitution and out of the governments hands, so how is it a "rights" issue? Are we now saying it is in fact covered by the constitution?
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:24 AM
Considering your background with your father you won't mind if I consider your judgement tainted, right?
Not cool at all. DS72 has shared information with us, and not shoved it down our throats. I think it's inappropriate to use his father in the midst of ANY argument, whether respectfully or not.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Can you show me where individuals who choose to have cancer or some other bodily or mental defect are denied any rights? Obviously it is not genetics. :rolleyes:
VERY easily proven that they were born with defects and defects are continually worked on for improvement and they are granted medical help.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:28 AM
show me where in the 14th straight marriage is addressed you idiot.
I don't think it's there either, but MANY gays think it does and think their "rights" to marry are based on the amendment.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:30 AM
Marriage is NOT mentioned in the COTUS, religious freedom however IS. Telling someone that what THEIR religion calls marriage is illegal is in fact unconstitutional (assuming that we are talking about consenting adults of course.)
Where is this 1st amendment violation occurring? What religion is being told what they call marriage is illegal?
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:34 AM
On this particular topic OCA, and to a lesser extent YOU, are certainly doing that.
Marriage is a religious institution PERIOD. You can NOT argue that point.
The point you would have to argue is that gays shouldn't be allowed to have civil contracts with each other, and in fact OCA flat said he would like as much, and THAT would be in violation of the 14th amendment.
Regulating MARRIAGE however is a violation of the first amendment, regardless of who's marriage the government is regulating.
Say what you will, but it IS being controlled by our government right now. You can't say they shouldn't and then base your argument on something that doesn't exist. When government bows out, we can revisit your argument. Until such time, we have little alternative but to argue what we are faced with. So I CAN argue your point. While I think it should be solely a religious institution, fact is, it's NOT right now. And based on our laws and constitution, no one is being constitutionally violated.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:35 AM
Who the hell said that? Neither will EVER be accepted as the norm, however the first amendment does not only apply to the norm.
If you are FOR allowing deviancy - then by default you are stating it's not a problem that they are now a part of society. And what does the 1st amendment have to do with whether or not polygamy is lawful or not?
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 10:36 AM
Myself I believe the bisexual people who switch back and forth like you or I would change socks destroys the entire "they were born that way" argument. However, it is irrelevant to THIS discussion. You have a right to do such things if you so choose.
Where is this "right" and where is it based from?
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Say what you will, but it IS being controlled by our government right now. You can't say they shouldn't and then base your argument on something that doesn't exist. When government bows out, we can revisit your argument. Until such time, we have little alternative but to argue what we are faced with. So I CAN argue your point. While I think it should be solely a religious institution, fact is, it's NOT right now. And based on our laws and constitution, no one is being constitutionally violated.
You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.
That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.
This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:58 AM
Where is this "right" and where is it based from?
Pursuit of happiness . If having gay sex makes you happy, you have that right, again provided it is with consenting adults.
If you don't believe that is true, then your argument should be to make gay sex illegal , not gay marriage. Unless of course you don't believe gays participate in extramarital sex.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 10:59 AM
If you are FOR allowing deviancy - then by default you are stating it's not a problem that they are now a part of society. And what does the 1st amendment have to do with whether or not polygamy is lawful or not?
I'm for you not telling me what I can and can not do in my bedroom and me not telling you what you can and can not do in YOUR bedroom.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:02 AM
You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.
That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.
This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.
The point is, if you feel the law is wrong, work to have it legally repealed. But back to OCA's original point - the 14th, has nothing to do with this. You feeling the law is wrong and the law being unconstitutional are 2 different things, and many gay marriage supporters use the 14th to show this unconstitutionality.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:03 AM
Pursuit of happiness . If having gay sex makes you happy, you have that right, again provided it is with consenting adults.
If you don't believe that is true, then your argument should be to make gay sex illegal , not gay marriage. Unless of course you don't believe gays participate in extramarital sex.
You have the right to pursuit, but that HARDLY means you have a right to the things you are pursuing. Gay marriage or even being gay - have NOTHING to do with the "pursuit of happiness"
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:05 AM
I'm for you not telling me what I can and can not do in my bedroom and me not telling you what you can and can not do in YOUR bedroom.
Allowing polygamy is a LOT more than just someone's sexual desires in the bedroom. If 1 man wants 10 women in their bedroom, more power to him. But it crosses the line, IMO, when we allow him to MARRY all of those women, and then have children raised in such an environment.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:07 AM
The point is, if you feel the law is wrong, work to have it legally repealed. But back to OCA's original point - the 14th, has nothing to do with this. You feeling the law is wrong and the law being unconstitutional are 2 different things, and many gay marriage supporters use the 14th to show this unconstitutionality.
Check the thread Jim, I said I think on page 1 that the 14th had nothing to do with it. And yes big surprise SOME gays are as stupid as other people and don''t even understand what they should be arguing about.
Look at that idiot WindSong the last time she was involved in a thread discussing gay marriage; I had you within an inch of agreeing with me and here she came in screaming that I was wrong and that what I proposed wasn't good enough even though it would have given her EXACTLY what she purportedly wants all b/c oh big surprise she's an idiot and doesn't understand logic.
The fact is though, the idiots are wrong, AND the fact that the 14th is irrelevant to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that marriage shouldn't be defined by the government , be it local, state, or federal.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:11 AM
Check the thread Jim, I said I think on page 1 that the 14th had nothing to do with it. And yes big surprise SOME gays are as stupid as other people and don''t even understand what they should be arguing about.
Look at that idiot WindSong the last time she was involved in a thread discussing gay marriage; I had you within an inch of agreeing with me and here she came in screaming that I was wrong and that what I proposed wasn't good enough even though it would have given her EXACTLY what she purportedly wants all b/c oh big surprise she's an idiot and doesn't understand logic.
The fact is though, the idiots are wrong, AND the fact that the 14th is irrelevant to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that marriage shouldn't be defined by the government , be it local, state, or federal.
Then I suppose we could have avoided 14 pages of "debating" here then? Sounds like from your post right here that you agree with OCA's opening statement, but your opening post speaks a little differently.
Tax evasion certainly hurts other people.
No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:17 AM
Allowing polygamy is a LOT more than just someone's sexual desires in the bedroom. If 1 man wants 10 women in their bedroom, more power to him. But it crosses the line, IMO, when we allow him to MARRY all of those women, and then have children raised in such an environment.
Hey, if you can make a valid argument that all children raised in polygamist homes are in danger then that is an argument I'm willing to look at and judge, but honestly I think it should be judged on a case by case basis, just as with heterosexual households.
Not cool at all. DS72 has shared information with us, and not shoved it down our throats. I think it's inappropriate to use his father in the midst of ANY argument, whether respectfully or not.
I think it was appropriate, his opinion is tainted on the issue because of that.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:19 AM
No, actually it doesn't. Don't give me the bullshit about services or any other such dumbass shit, unless you mean that a corporation won't get their welfare then you'd be correct.
Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:20 AM
Then I suppose we could have avoided 14 pages of "debating" here then? Sounds like from your post right here that you agree with OCA's opening statement, but your opening post speaks a little differently.
I've been consistent on my stance on gay marriage for quite awhile Jim, the 14th has nothing to do with it. My only point in THIS thread has been that the 14th having nothing to do with it does not mean it's okay to outlaw gay marriage.
You're correct, and that is ENTIRELY what I am arguing. That the current law is wrong and that the government should bow out of marriage altogether.
That way, no one "loses" gays can get "married" if they wish and you don't have to recognize that marriage as equal to your own if you don't want to, and the radicals on either side (not putting you in this group) can be told to shut up.
This country has more serious problems to deal with than gay marriage which the government shouldn't be involved with anyway. It's time to do what we can to put this to bed and move on to serious business.
But even if two queers get married the state should not be forced to recognize that marriage and should not be forced to extend any marriage benefits to them.
Simple question, if EVERYONE refused to pay taxes would you be affected? Of course you would be so it stands to reason that if one person refuses to pay taxes then you are likewise affected, just to a smaller degree.
I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:28 AM
But even if two queers get married the state should not be forced to recognize that marriage and should not be forced to extend any marriage benefits to them.
The state shouldn't recognize marriage at ALL. You want benefit "rights" sign a contract. I don't give a shit if you sign your SS benefits over to an elephant, they are YOUR benefits, do with them as you wish. Why do you care what others do with theirs?
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:28 AM
I'm not affected at all, the only services I use are roads, roads can be privatized.
Oh good grief
You have the right to pursuit, but that HARDLY means you have a right to the things you are pursuing. Gay marriage or even being gay - have NOTHING to do with the "pursuit of happiness"
And that goes to the underbelly of the whole "gay marriage" debate, queers don't really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage brings.
If they just truely wanted to be left alone then this wouldn't be an issue but thats not really it, right?
Oh good grief
They can't be privatized? The government is the only entity that can build and maintain roadways?
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:35 AM
And that goes to the underbelly of the whole "gay marriage" debate, queers don't really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage brings.
If they just truely wanted to be left alone then this wouldn't be an issue but thats not really it, right?
That's obviously going to be true for some, but for all? Hardly. In that sense gays are no different than any other group of people.
As an example of each WindSong obviously wants to shove gay in everyone's face, she's a disgusting example of a gay. FJ on the other hand is low key, and just wants to be left alone to live his life. :lol: hahaha FJ you thought I was gonna let the other day slide :fu:
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:36 AM
Hey, if you can make a valid argument that all children raised in polygamist homes are in danger then that is an argument I'm willing to look at and judge, but honestly I think it should be judged on a case by case basis, just as with heterosexual households.
Then ANY lifestyle choice should be allowed, so long as others aren't harmed, and it doesn't harm the children, correct?
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Then ANY lifestyle choice should be allowed, so long as others aren't harmed, and it doesn't harm the children, correct?
That is correct. An American ought be free to pursue any endeavor he wants provided he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 11:45 AM
That is correct. An American ought be free to pursue any endeavor he wants provided he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
So you shouldn't have an issue, with 2 like minded adults, who want to engage in shit smearing on one another, which is a growing fetish. And if they remain clothed, no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so in their yards, away from where others may be harmed by the filth. And they should be free to go to sanitized clubs to engage their behavior. And then marry based on this behavior. Maybe have TV shows for those interested. They should have ALL the same rights as others, so long as no one else is harmed.
And then cults that gather, they're good for society too. Let them have their seances on the front lawns and let the neighbors kids watch their garbage. Let them leave out cheese and catch hundreds of mice. Then wait till nighttime and sacrifice them to the Gods in front of a campfire. Good old fashioned fun!
And I should be able to place my wife in chains, and a ball gag, and place her in a dog cage in my front yard for all the children to see, so long as she is willing of course. She'll be clothed properly, don't worry.
Shall I continue this list all day?
Sorry, society has ALWAYS determined what is best for society.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 11:56 AM
So you shouldn't have an issue, with 2 like minded adults, who want to engage in shit smearing on one another, which is a growing fetish.
None, have at it
And if they remain clothed, no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so in their yards, away from where others may be harmed by the filth.
Public decency laws would apply
And they should be free to go to sanitized clubs to engage their behavior. And then marry based on this behavior.
If they wish
Maybe have TV shows for those interested. They should have ALL the same rights as others, so long as no one else is harmed.
As long as no one is FORCED to watch sure. BTW they already have that on the internet I'm sure you know.
And then cults that gather, they're good for society too. Let them have their seances on the front lawns and let the neighbors kids watch their garbage.
Unless and until they cross the line free speech laws apply
Let them leave out cheese and catch hundreds of mice. Then wait till nighttime and sacrifice them to the Gods in front of a campfire. Good old fashioned fun!
Animal cruelty laws apply
And I should be able to place my wife in chains, and a ball gag, and place her in a dog cage in my front yard for all the children to see, so long as she is willing of course. She'll be clothed properly, don't worry.
Sure, if you wish, I have oft seen people leading their wives around on leashes, that isn't much different.
Shall I continue this list all day?
Sorry, society has ALWAYS determined what is best for society. No, society has NOT always made behavior that some find icky illegal, not in the US.
aboutime
06-05-2012, 12:02 PM
The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.
In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.
So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.
The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.
In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.
So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.
Which amendment?
So society cannot set decency laws? Or limits on behavior?
Last time I checked for the most part smoking crack only affects the smoker.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 12:42 PM
Which amendment?
So society cannot set decency laws? Or limits on behavior?
Last time I checked for the most part smoking crack only affects the smoker.
Stop with the absurd, obviously smoking crack affects more than the smoker. As for decency laws, sure but those laws don't apply to what is going on inside your home.
Stop with the absurd, obviously smoking crack affects more than the smoker. As for decency laws, sure but those laws don't apply to what is going on inside your home.
Obviously? You'll excuse me but your word on this board is shit so you'll have to offer up some backup to what you claim.
Society has always set limits, inside the home or not.
ConHog
06-05-2012, 12:59 PM
Obviously? You'll excuse me but your word on this board is shit so you'll have to offer up some backup to what you claim.
Society has always set limits, inside the home or not.
My word is for shit? LOL I'm about tired of your stupidity junior, I'll put up my credibility as a poster against yours ANY day of the week.
As for society, of course they have always put up limits, and those limits in THIS country have ALWAYS been this "you mind your business and I'll mind mine; and we'll leave it to gov't to protect those who can't protect themselves.
My word is for shit? LOL I'm about tired of your stupidity junior, I'll put up my credibility as a poster against yours ANY day of the week.
As for society, of course they have always put up limits, and those limits in THIS country have ALWAYS been this "you mind your business and I'll mind mine; and we'll leave it to gov't to protect those who can't protect themselves.
How about Tues. June 5?
jimnyc
06-05-2012, 01:29 PM
Public decency laws would apply
The constitution gives every American the guaranteed right to do stupid, idiotic, crazy, ignorant, and absolutely Dumb things as long as they obey the laws, and do not harm others.
In other words. The Constitutional rights to be Ignorant CANNOT be taken away.
So. Like it or not. Whatever anyone wants to do...even to the point of eating their own, or someone else's crap, and smearing it all over themselves IS...protected by that same constitution.
Wait a minute...
Certain things can't be done, because it's not "decent" enough for society, but yet there is some hidden constitutional right to do these things anyway? How can one have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do things, and yet have decency laws to outlaw them?
Sounds to me like there is NO MENTION whatsoever about certain things in the COTUS and that society has made decency laws to protect its citizens. Odd, ain't it?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.