Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?

Dixie said:
Gender has nothing to do with sexuality!
Click to expand...


Then why do they call marriages hetero-SEXUAL and homo-SEXUAL? If marriage has nothing to do with sex, then what’s your problem with SOME particular gender of folks being allowed free and agreeable marriage contracts?
 
Dixie said:
MORON! [/B]Marriage in Western culture, since the days of Martin Luther, has been a largely religious tradition, generally accompanied by a ceremony known as a wedding, where a male and female join in holy matrimony for the intention and purpose of raising a family. The only governmental requirement has been, they be consenting and legal age, and not too closely related, because that produces retards like you.
Click to expand...

Oh! I see, marriage has to be a Martin Luther religious sanctioned event solely for the purpose of procreation and nothing else because God told you so, right Goober?

Fuck the Constitution! Fuck Amendments 9 & 14! Fuck the Encarta Dictionary that says MARRIAGE is (1) a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (2) a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse. (3) the joining together in wedlock of two people. (4) the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock.

Where’s the religious and gender parts Goober? Where the fuck is Martin Luther in the marriage definition?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Which is what you are wanting to VIOLATE and FORCE your immoral perversions of marriage on us against our will.
Click to expand...

So, those perverted Queers are going to FORCE their way into your house and your bedroom and move in and FORCE you sleep with them and FORCE you to turn queer and FORCE your wife to divorce you and FORCE her to marry another woman, right Goober? That would be a violation of your rights Goober and totally forbidden by the rule of constitutional law.

Actually Goober it’s you and yours that wants to FORCE, with government, law your prejudices on other folks through prohibition of an action that absolutely has ZERO effect on any right of yours! You’re just a fucking BIG Government progressive Goober!
 
Dixie said:
Again, it's NOT a violation of the Constitutional rights to deny a marriage licence to two people who aren't marrying. Two gay males can't enter into holy matrimony and produce a family,
Click to expand...

By what law is marriage confined to HOLY MATRIMONY & PROCREATION GOOBER? Isn’t that a RELIGIOUS concept?

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” (Amendment One, United States Constitution)
 
Dixie said:
You want to try and change the definition of marriage to include this behavior, which is a purely sexual behavior. The Constitution grants you no such right.
Click to expand...

The only thing I want to do in regard to this issue Goober is promote constitutional principle. The Constitution itself, (not me), forbids the prohibition of free and agreeable adult marriage contracts. See amendments 9 & 14.
 
Dixie said:
It establishes our freedoms and rights in pretty definitive terms, and it does not give homosexuals the right to pervert the meaning of marriage or anything else, in order to legitimize their sexual behaviors and lifestyles.
Click to expand...

But it’s you and yours that is perverting the definition of marriage with your biased, bigoted, religious and perverted definition of marriage. You’re just an American BIG Government Theocrat and progressive neo-con. You Goober are an American Talaban!
 
Dixie said:
It clearly DOES give power to the people and states respectfully, for anything that isn't specifically enumerated as a power of federal government. Since the Federal Government is not granted the power to change and alter the definitions of words to accommodate homosexuals, this power resides in the people and states respectively, according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Your pathetic problem with that Goober is that “The People” and “The States” cannot legally violate the 9th & 14th Amendments of the National Constitution. Our National Constitution takes by ratification by the States and the People therein the undeniable, inalienable superior position of the rule of constitutional law. America was founded Goober not as a “majority mob rule democracy,” but rather as a “Constitutional Republic” whereby we elect representatives to govern absolutely by the dictates of our National Constitution by which said representation is sworn to preserve, protect and defend.
 
Classic Liberal said:
More of your yada, yada, yada insanity. You’ve thus far “debunked” nothing!
Click to expand...

I debunked everything, it's in that "yada yada" part you glossed over.

The correlation of prohibition on interracial marriages & same sex marriages seems perfectly evident to most everybody except you.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it only seems evident to idiot morons like you, who can't grasp the enormous differences. Most non-morons can comprehend the systemic racism of prohibiting interracial marriages, when the only marriages prohibited were between black and white people. Most non-morons can also grasp that homosexuals aren't being prohibited from anything others are allowed to do. People who aren't total fucking retards, understand there are major fundamental differences between racial discrimination and opposition to changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexual behavior. And most people are not so devoid of character and actually have enough intellectual honesty, not to try and make such a comparison. Then, there is YOU!

Since you have a problem digesting it, I’ll spell it out for you. Prohibition of interracial marriages PREVENTED SOME MEN AND WOMEN FROM MAKING FREE & AGREEABLE MARRIAGE CONTRACTS WITH PEOPLE THEY WANTED TO MARRY. PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGES PREVENTS SOME MEN AND WOMEN FROM MAKING FREE & AGREEABLE MARRIAGE CONTRACTS WITH PEOPLE THEY WANT TO MARRY.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry, but you are again confusing the word "marriage" for something that is not "marriage." Gay people are not prohibited from marrying! There is not one probate judge in the country who asks anyone if they are gay or straight, when issuing marriage licenses. You want to have marriage licensing for same-sex couples, but that isn't marriage. Prohibition of "gay marriage" prevents ALL men and women from making free and agreeable marriage contracts with people of the same sex, because that isn't marriage.

Of course who would expect you of all people to understand the concept of AGREEABLE I also respect the right of everybody to refuse to marry an idiot.
Click to expand...

But that's not what you claimed. You said we have the Constitutional right to marry whoever we please. Now you come back with a prerequisite that must be met, in order for our "right" to be realized. Do we have the "right" to marry whomever we please, or not? I argue, we DO NOT have the right to marry whomever we please, and I have proven I am correct, I am not married to Christie Brinkley. We certainly don't have the right to do something that is not marriage and simply redefine marriage to include what we want to do. The Constitution doesn't give us permission to do that, unless a new Constitutional amendment is ratified by the people.
 
defining "marriage" as exclusively between a man and a woman is just a archaic convention. Words change meanings over time as society changes. The word "gay" has a meaning today that was never contemplated when it was originally used in our language. The word "awful" now means exactly the opposite of what it used to mean.

Gay marriage is not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of when. Look at the trend lines of public opinion and that fact becomes obvious. In 1969, gays were thrown in jail in NYC, and the Stonewall riots happened. No one would have imagined 40 years ago that gays would be getting married in NYC, or Maine, for that matter.
 
Dixie said:
I debunked everything, it's in that "yada yada" part you glossed over.



No it doesn't, it only seems evident to idiot morons like you, who can't grasp the enormous differences. Most non-morons can comprehend the systemic racism of prohibiting interracial marriages, when the only marriages prohibited were between black and white people. Most non-morons can also grasp that homosexuals aren't being prohibited from anything others are allowed to do. People who aren't total fucking retards, understand there are major fundamental differences between racial discrimination and opposition to changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexual behavior. And most people are not so devoid of character and actually have enough intellectual honesty, not to try and make such a comparison. Then, there is YOU!



No, I'm sorry, but you are again confusing the word "marriage" for something that is not "marriage." Gay people are not prohibited from marrying! There is not one probate judge in the country who asks anyone if they are gay or straight, when issuing marriage licenses. You want to have marriage licensing for same-sex couples, but that isn't marriage. Prohibition of "gay marriage" prevents ALL men and women from making free and agreeable marriage contracts with people of the same sex, because that isn't marriage.



But that's not what you claimed. You said we have the Constitutional right to marry whoever we please. Now you come back with a prerequisite that must be met, in order for our "right" to be realized. Do we have the "right" to marry whomever we please, or not? I argue, we DO NOT have the right to marry whomever we please, and I have proven I am correct, I am not married to Christie Brinkley. We certainly don't have the right to do something that is not marriage and simply redefine marriage to include what we want to do. The Constitution doesn't give us permission to do that, unless a new Constitutional amendment is ratified by the people.
Click to expand...

I saw a fb post yesterday that asked the question, did giving the vote to women change voting? Traditionally only men could vote, so by giving women the right to vote change voting? Did giving blacks the right to attend white schools change education? Traditionally blacks could not attend school with whites.

Traditions can be changed and for the better!
 
Rana said:
I saw a fb post yesterday that asked the question, did giving the vote to women change voting? Traditionally only men could vote, so by giving women the right to vote change voting? Did giving blacks the right to attend white schools change education? Traditionally blacks could not attend school with whites.

Traditions can be changed and for the better!
Click to expand...

You are pointing out issues that were resolved, by your own admission, without fundamentally changing the definitions of things. This proves the problems and issues facing gay couples, can also be resolved without changing the definitions of things. Traditions can change, without changing the definitions of things. You've proven this for yourself.
 
Dixie said:
You are pointing out issues that were resolved, by your own admission, without fundamentally changing the definitions of things. This proves the problems and issues facing gay couples, can also be resolved without changing the definitions of things. Traditions can change, without changing the definitions of things. You've proven this for yourself.
Click to expand...

More word salad, gays getting married won't change the definition of marriage.
 
maineman said:
defining "marriage" as exclusively between a man and a woman is just a archaic convention. Words change meanings over time as society changes. The word "gay" has a meaning today that was never contemplated when it was originally used in our language. The word "awful" now means exactly the opposite of what it used to mean.

Gay marriage is not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of when. Look at the trend lines of public opinion and that fact becomes obvious. In 1969, gays were thrown in jail in NYC, and the Stonewall riots happened. No one would have imagined 40 years ago that gays would be getting married in NYC, or Maine, for that matter.
Click to expand...

It's more than an archaic convention, it is the fundamental way we've described marriage since Martin Luther.
 
Dixie said:
I debunked everything, it's in that "yada yada" part you glossed over.
Click to expand...

You Sir couldn’t debunk a bunk! Your only talent is endless babblings of absurdities proving your total lack of intellect and rational thought. You’re nothing less than a endless babbling boring bigot.
 
Dixie said:
No it doesn't, it only seems evident to idiot morons like you, who can't grasp the enormous differences. Most non-morons can comprehend the systemic racism of prohibiting interracial marriages, when the only marriages prohibited were between black and white people. Most non-morons can also grasp that homosexuals aren't being prohibited from anything others are allowed to do.
Click to expand...

I repeat again Goober, gays are being prevented from making FREE agreeable marriage contracts with people they want to make FREE agreeable marriage contracts with while no such prohibition is forced on other people.

“No State shall make or enforce any law to deny any person equal protection of the law” (Amendment 14)
 
People who aren't total fucking retards, understand there are major fundamental differences between racial discrimination and opposition to changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexual behavior. And most people are not so devoid of character and actually have enough intellectual honesty, not to try and make such a comparison. Then, there is YOU!
Click to expand...

Again just for you Goober since your head is so fucking thick it hasn’t sunk in yet, Encarta Dictionary says MARRIAGE is (1) a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (2) a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse. (3) the joining together in wedlock of two people. (4) the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock.

What part of that do you not understand Goober? How does gay marriage change those definitions Goober?
 
Dixie said:
No, I'm sorry, but you are again confusing the word "marriage" for something that is not "marriage." Gay people are not prohibited from marrying! There is not one probate judge in the country who asks anyone if they are gay or straight, when issuing marriage licenses. You want to have marriage licensing for same-sex couples, but that isn't marriage. Prohibition of "gay marriage" prevents ALL men and women from making free and agreeable marriage contracts with people of the same sex, because that isn't marriage.
Click to expand...

Again just for you Goober since your head is so fucking thick it hasn’t sunk in yet, Encarta Dictionary says MARRIAGE is (1) a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. (2) a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse. (3) the joining together in wedlock of two people. (4) the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock.

What part of that do you not understand Goober? How does gay marriage change those definitions Goober?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top