Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?

You are a hair splitter.

No, I am not a hair splitter, I believe there are two distinctly different hairs here, and they should both be recognized as unique hairs, and other hairs could be recognized too, and we can then make them equal hairs in all regards. You want to split the hair into two parts and call them the same as two hairs by redefining the meaning of two hairs.
 
"If the people have the right to decide gay marriage is legal, then they also have the same right to determine gay marriage is not legal."


........... in the different states.

Actually, it’s Amendment 9 that ”The People” have ratified that makes free and agreeable contracts between adults ”legal” and Amendment 14 that “ The People” have ratified that makes prohibiting such contracts for ”Some People” illegal
 
I've already responded to that when someone else posted it. No one was denied ANYTHING because they were homosexual. The fact you can run out there and find a revised, politically corrected definition of marriage, doesn't mean anything in this debate. Marriage is the union in holy matrimony, of a male and female. It doesn't matter how many politically correct dictionaries change their definitions to support your misunderstanding.

Oh! OK so the dictionaries are wrong and Dixie Cup is right. How silly of me. And of course the only kind of marriage is “holy matrimony” a religious service of Dixie Cup’s choice. Folks that get married by the Justice Of The Peace and Ship’s Captains aren’t really married they’re blaspheming the will of Dixie Cup’s God, right Dixie Cup?

We've been over this, the problem is not your interpretation of the 9th and 14th, it is your definition of what "marriage" is. Now, if you want to argue that the people have the right to decide same sex domestic partnership is the same as marriage, then you do have a point, but if they have this right, they also have the right to determine this is NOT marriage, and marriage is between a man and woman. The 9th and 14th give the people just as much right to determine one way as the other.

Actually Goober the Constitution gives morons like you the right to decide, (for yourself), whatever the fuck y’all want but it also prohibits morons like you from shoving your religion down other folks throats and making unconstitutional laws like proposition 8.
 
Then the Constitution simply doesn't give us the right you claimed, to marry whomever we please.

Show me where I claimed the Constitution gave anybody “the right to marry anybody they wanted” Goober! Your argument, (notice that I use the term “argument” loosely), has evolved from idiocy to fucking lying. The only thing worse than a fucking idiot is a “lying” fucking idiot! I’ve made it perfectly clear to every “non”-moron that the Constitution gives the right to everybody to marry other ”AGREEABLE” people a concept that of course your fucking pea-brain can’t digest.
 
Thanks for PWNING yourself for me, not that I was needing any help, but I appreciate it.

Oh! You “need help” alright Goober, you need a fucking head doctor that can cure insane morons.

As we can see, there are criteria attached to this supposed "right" we have. In addition to a partner who is agreeable, the partner also has to be alive, human, and of legal age, not too closely related, and the partner has to be of the opposite sex.

Then according to you and your ignorant religionist Talaban followers, one can only make a non-free agreeable contract with another agreeable person in “Holy Matrimony.” because you want America to be a theocracy instead of a constitutional republic, right Goober?
 
She is hated becuse she is ignorant and self centered. She didn't give two hoots about Alaska, it was all about self promotion. She still is about her self promotion. She is a quiter! She is superficial.


I've always defended Sarah Palin as a human being and not as a Republican or the governor of Alaska.

This is where phony feminist operatives such as yourself exposed your true intentions by dehumanizing Palin because she's pro life and you want one of your Jersey Shore fellow feminists in the WH first, not her.

Palin was a different kind of feminist .. a pro life working mom and her influence on society as such among the female youth of the country is why you detest her.

And because of your dehumanizing of her, Palin has become a big popular star and enormously wealthy which is something I don't like because of how she got where she currently is and the kind of Hollywood types .. who are in my opinion, vermin whom she now associates herself with.
 
No, I am not a hair splitter, I believe there are two distinctly different hairs here, and they should both be recognized as unique hairs, and other hairs could be recognized too, and we can then make them equal hairs in all regards. You want to split the hair into two parts and call them the same as two hairs by redefining the meaning of two hairs.


Right.

......... I think.
 
The Constitution does give us the right to change marriage and include same sex couples, if that's what the people vote to do. However, since it gives us this right, it also gives the same right to reaffirm marriage is between a man and woman.

Well then Goober how come amendment 14 doesn’t say ”Equal protection of the law exclusively for opposite gender people in the case of marriage,” instead of “ANY PERSON?”

You have the constitutional right to affirm and reaffirm marriage any way you want Goober, you just don’t have that right to do it for anybody else except the lackeys that agree with your stupid biased, bigoted, religionist, Talaban ass.

By perverting marriage to include homosexuals, you are directly attacking a ritual which is part of people's religious exercise.

Then how come your not arguing in opposition to marriages performed by Ship’s Captains and Justices Of The Peace Goober? That has to be a “PERVERSION” of “HOLY MATRIMONY” in your Taliban world, right Goober?


If you are correct about not assuming a right that violates the rights of others, then this has to be taken into consideration. People do have the right to freely exercise their religion, which includes retaining their rituals as sacred. You can't use the law to make a mockery of religious customs, and still be guaranteeing the freedom of religious expression.

But Goober your pea-brain is living in the same Collective, progressive, majority mob rule world that Democrats love so much Your ignorant and feeble brain refuses the fact that other folks don’t give a flying fuck about your religion and the fact that you personally and all of your lackeys have a total right of religious expression as long as you don’t try to force it on those other folks that don’t give a rats ass about your religion.

If you believe that gay marriage makes a mockery of your religious expression at the same time other folks believe your religious expression makes a mockery of their constitutionally guaranteed right to express their commitment to another person by legal constitutionally guaranteed agreeable contract.

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof” (Amendment One, United States Constitution)

In other words Goober, “express” as you wish, but your religion is not mandated for other folks to express.
 
a pro life working mom and her influence on society as such among the female youth of the country


It takes a special kind of tard to say that Sarah Barracuda is a role model.

For what?

Giving up?

Secession?

Racism?


Above all...

Raising sluts, drunks and drug abusers?

Now them's some fine family values...


You betcha!
 
Show me where I claimed the Constitution gave anybody “the right to marry anybody they wanted” Goober! Your argument, (notice that I use the term “argument” loosely), has evolved from idiocy to fucking lying. The only thing worse than a fucking idiot is a “lying” fucking idiot! I’ve made it perfectly clear to every “non”-moron that the Constitution gives the right to everybody to marry other ”AGREEABLE” people a concept that of course your fucking pea-brain can’t digest.

HERE:
On the contrary Goober the constitutional amendments already exist that guarantee everybody’s right to marry whoever the fuck they want.

You did not mention "agreeable" until I called you out. You also haven't acknowledged several other criteria on this supposed "freedom" we have, like the fact we can't marry our sisters, even if all parties are agreeable. We can't marry a goat, we can't marry our car, we can't marry our dead fiance, we can't marry more than one person, we can't marry someone under a certain age. So the Constitution simply doesn't give us the right to marry whomever we please, even if they are agreeable.
 
Actually, it’s Amendment 9 that ”The People” have ratified that makes free and agreeable contracts between adults ”legal” and Amendment 14 that “ The People” have ratified that makes prohibiting such contracts for ”Some People” illegal

But no contracts are being prohibited. Homosexuals are free to make the same exact contract with a person of the opposite sex, there is no sexuality prerequisite in obtaining a marriage licence. You are wanting to include something that is not marriage and make a contract of marriage, and the Constitution does not give you that right. We can't call things "marriage" because we want to do them, and believe that's how to make them constitutional.

I have a State of Alabama Hunting License. I can't go out and start mowing down people, and when the police arrive, say, "hey, it's okay guys, I have a hunting license!" The hunting license is for a specific thing, it is defined, we all understand how "hunting" is defined, we can't alter and change the meaning of "hunting" to include "hunting people" and pretend we have this right, or are being denied the right to shoot people because we aren't allowed to obtain a hunting license which allows this. Now, the Constitution DOES give us the right to pass and ratify an Amendment to allow us to hunt people, if that's what we want to do. But we can't Constitutionalize the hunting of people by changing the meaning of "hunting!"
 
But Goober your pea-brain is living in the same Collective, progressive, majority mob rule world that Democrats love so much Your ignorant and feeble brain refuses the fact that other folks don’t give a flying fuck about your religion and the fact that you personally and all of your lackeys have a total right of religious expression as long as you don’t try to force it on those other folks that don’t give a rats ass about your religion.

Which is precisely why we ratified the 1st Amendment, to protect people from religious persecution and allow freedom of religious exercise. Note here, for your retard brain, I didn't say "religious expression." There is a difference between religious expression and religious exercise. Exercising a religion requires general dignified reverence and respect for religious customs and traditions. You have to go further than allowing free religious "expression" you have to allow free religious exercise. So that's the first thing you need to get straight, and it simply doesn't matter how many people "care" or give "flying fucks" about it. It's in the Bill of Rights.
 
Then how come your not arguing in opposition to marriages performed by Ship’s Captains and Justices Of The Peace Goober? That has to be a “PERVERSION” of “HOLY MATRIMONY” in your Taliban world, right Goober?

Hmmm... God doesn't board ships or enter buildings where JoPs are? I thought He was omnipresent?
 
It takes a special kind of tard to say that Sarah Barracuda is a role model.

For what?

Giving up?

Secession?

Racism?


Above all...

Raising sluts, drunks and drug abusers?

Now them's some fine family values...


You betcha!


Is Palin a human being in your opinion?

And I haven't even got to the: Is Palin a woman question yet.
 
Kk
I've always defended Sarah Palin as a human being and not as a Republican or the governor of Alaska.

This is where phony feminist operatives such as yourself exposed your true intentions by dehumanizing Palin because she's pro life and you want one of your Jersey Shore fellow feminists in the WH first, not her.

Palin was a different kind of feminist .. a pro life working mom and her influence on society as such among the female youth of the country is why you detest hOk.

And because of your dehumanizing of her, Palin has become a big popular star and enormously wealthy which is something I don't like because of how she got where she currently is and the kind of Hollywood types .. who are in my opinion, vermin whom she now associates herself with.

I criticize Palin as a politician.

I do not care what her personal values are because she showed her values to me as a politician.

I don't buy her books and I don't agree with a lot of her positions, but I do give her credit for knowing how to sell herself.

She fooled me once.
 
so two atheists who get married at a Justice of the Peace are entering into a God blessed holy matrimonial union? Really?

I don't know, it's not for me to judge. Marriage can't be marriage unless it's a man and woman getting married, I don't have to judge anything there. You're not going to ever force me to recognize anything else as marriage, and you're not going to force religion to accept homosexual relationships as traditional marriages. The Constitution doesn't give you any right to do this, unless you ratify a new Constitutional amendment. The argument that government can determine this, means that government can also determine that marriage is between a man and woman. If the people are free to decide marriage can be same-sex, they are also free to decide it can't.

Why are you continuing to pose argumentative points to a problem and issue we both agree on the solution to?
 
because I don't believe that the constitution prohibits same sex marriage as it presently stands. I see no need for a constitutional amendment that would allow two people to get married. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it now. Your assertion that, somehow, marriage is some holy religious thing is irrelevant. People get married all the time without God being involved whatsoever.
 
because I don't believe that the constitution prohibits same sex marriage as it presently stands. I see no need for a constitutional amendment that would allow two people to get married. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it now. Your assertion that, somehow, marriage is some holy religious thing is irrelevant. People get married all the time without God being involved whatsoever.

That doesn't matter, people drink wine and eat bread all the time, it's not Eucerest. Because it is ALSO tied to religious exercise, you aren't permitted to just change it. It would be like passing a law that prevents you from traveling to church on Sunday. It is an encroachment on religious exercise. It's also like passing a law that businesses MUST be open on Sunday, you can't really do that, because many business owners respect the Sabbath. Such a law would encroach on their religious freedoms.

People have the inalienable right to religious exercise (not just expression). One of the fundamental exercises is a ceremonial uniting of a man and woman, so they can go forth and produce and raise families. This is foundational to the religion and religious belief, and the government has no right to determine the parameters. That is the religious defense of traditional marriage in a nutshell, and it is a valid defense, but it's not the only argument against same-sex marriage.

My argument has always been about the 'equal protection' clause, and how it can be applied in the post-finding 'marriage' can be redefined to conform to sexual behavior? IF we are Constitutionally bound to alter marriage in order to accommodate homosexual relationships, we have to also allow other similar relationships. There is no way to avoid this, once we have made marriage about sexuality, and not merely a contract between a man and woman, without a sexuality component. Slippery slope? Can of worms? Whatever you want to call it, the Constitution is clear, we have to adhere to 'equal protection' and we will have to live by whatever standard we set.

But again I ask you, why are you still presenting arguments for a problem we have both agreed on a solution to?
 
Kk

I criticize Palin as a politician.

I do not care what her personal values are because she showed her values to me as a politician.

I don't buy her books and I don't agree with a lot of her positions, but I do give her credit for knowing how to sell herself.

She fooled me once.

Sell herself like a whore you mean.

Say something good about the woman .. go ahead.

If she's human then give her a nod for being human and say something good about her.

Start to finish without any degrading remarks about her.
 
Back
Top