Robo
Verified User
Again just for you Goober Moron,
I said Free & AGREEABLE” what part of AGREEABLE do you not understand Moron? Has Christie Brinkley AGREED to marry you? She must be one stupid bitch if she did!!!!
Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Again just for you Goober Moron,
I said Free & AGREEABLE” what part of AGREEABLE do you not understand Moron? Has Christie Brinkley AGREED to marry you? She must be one stupid bitch if she did!!!!
They also thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but that changed, didn't it!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So criticizing Palin makes me an "objectifying woman hater"?
Beyond your opinion, what proof of you of this? Like it or not, it was Palin herself that made her whole political stature a joke...not me. TFB if folk like you don't like it....blame her, not me.
Now, if you don't have anything other than worthless personal attacks to add, I'll just ignore you. Carry on.
Wrong, dipstick. Congress didn't "define" marriage until 1996 and when it did it did so at the behest of foolish fundamentalists.
The law is and will be deemed unconstitutional.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
It's not, it's just called marriage. Some people have innovated a new concept called gay marriage.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
NO THEY ARE NOT! IF YOU CAN SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE ANY PERSON IN AMERICA HAS BEEN DENIED A MARRIAGE LICENSE, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF LICENSE, ON THE BASIS THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL, I WILL JOIN YOU IN VEHEMENT PROTEST!
If homosexuals want to "marry" they can go through the exact same process that is available to heterosexuals to become married. You want to RE-FUCKING-DEFINE the word "marriage" to include same sex partnerships, and that is NOT MARRIAGE! You are asking for a special law to allow homosexual people to do whatever they want to do, and call it marriage. The Constitution does not grant homosexual people special rights over everyone else. The Constitution does not allow you to redefine the meaning of things, in order to make your actions constitutional. It just fucking doesn't say that, moron!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So we have rights but only if someone is agreeable? That doesn't sound like we really have the right to marry whomever we please. That was your claim, now you are walking it back. So did you misinterpret the Constitution? Are you sure you know what it guarantees as a right and what it doesn't? It sounds like you might be confused on that, but you are definitely confused about what "marriage" means and what "marriage" is. You keep mistaking homosexual relationships for marriages, and these are two completely different things. We can discuss what the fundamental differences are, if we need to.
The Constitution does not deny the right of gays to marry.
The definition of "marriage" has changed over the years and it will change again, you can't deny rights to others.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And like I said, show me where they were denied a marriage license because they are homosexuals? They didn't qualify for a marriage license because they weren't male and female, they are of the same gender. That kind of union is not a marriage. If these same gay people showed up at the courthouse with a partner of the opposite sex, they could obtain a marriage license, they would not be denied one on the basis of their homosexuality.
You are an idiot.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I never have said it denies gays the right to marry. In fact, gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, there is no prerequisite of sexuality required for a marriage license. Marriage is the union of a male and female, that is where the problem is. You seem to be confusing something that isn't marriage, with what actually is marriage.
You are absurd and hung up on semantics. Homosexuals are being denied the right to form a legal contract with one another defined as marriage. They can not form a civil union they don't have legal rights as enjoyed by hetrosexuals. You can pay these silky word games, but it all comes down to the fact that homosexuals are being denied certain rights, period. You stupid definition game is ridiculous.
Good article for all you hair splitters!
http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-vs-civil-union-argument-semantics-345930.html?cat=9
http://voices.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-vs-civil-union-argument-semantics-345930.html?cat=9
maineman
Banned
and like I said, words we have used to mean one thing, have, over time, come to mean different things. I would think that any attempt of yours to disprove this fact would be, in a word, awful. (Now, you could use the 18th century definition of that word to bolster your case, and I could use the 21st century definition to bolster mine. Isn't language fun.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Homosexuals are not being denied the right to form legal contracts with one another defined as marriage. They can't enter into such contracts with people who are the same gender, because that is not marriage. There are LOTS of things that aren't marriage, that both gay people and straight people are not allowed to do and call marriage. We don't fuck goats and call that marriage. We don't have sex with kids and call that marriage. It doesn't matter that some people would like the right to do this, the Constitution gives them no such right.
You are the one who is trying to play word games. You are trying to call homosexual relationships "marriage" when that isn't what "marriage" means. Because you've taken something that is not marriage, and decided to call it marriage anyway, doesn't mean you have some legitimate complaint. The Constitution, and nothing about Western democracy, gives you the right to redefine things so that you can legitimize behavior, and that is exactly what you want to do here.
I've said it plenty of times, I fully sympathize with gay couples who seek the same benefits of married couples. But we can resolve their issue without redefining marriage or taking a big steamy dump on religion, which is what this is really all about. We can resolve this issue in a way that gives every side what they claim to want, and ends this debate forever, and treats everyone with fairness and respect, while disengaging government from sanctioning religious tradition OR sexual behavior. But the activists don't want this solution, it takes the issue off the table, and doesn't allow them to exploit it for political gain.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years. We can't up and decide that popping a cap in our neighbors is "free speech" because we say so. The Constitution doesn't allow you to do that, and nothing in law or ethics permits such a thing. We can't alter the definitions and meanings of things, in order to make something "constitutional." Now, you and your pervert friends can do that here, you can redefine all over the place and slap each other on the back for being so clever, but our Constitution and rule of law simply doesn't allow us this freedom, unless it is specifically done by the people through amendment ratification.
Robo
Verified User
Protest this Goober!
http://www.arlnow.com/2012/02/14/gay-couple-denied-marriage-license-at-arlington-courthouse/
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[2][3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Answer: Twenty-nine states have a constitutional ban restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Those states are:
• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California (with the passage of Prop 8)
• Colorado
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/GayMarriageBan.htm
Looks like you fell over your fucking keyboard again Goober!
ENCARTA ENGLISH DICTIONARY
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.
Looks like you’re the moron that wants to redefine the definition of marriage Goober to fit into your own little biased, bigoted Talaban world, huh?
No “special law” Goober, just EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW that already exist for SOME people but not for other people, exactly the way it was when interracial marriages were banned unconstitutionally.
No “special rights” Dim-Wit, just EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW that already exist for SOME people but not for other people, exactly the way it was when interracial marriages were banned unconstitutionally.
Then stop doing it you fucking lunatic!!!
ENCARTA ENGLISH DICTIONARY
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.
philly rabbit
Verified User
Palin's duties as vice president would be limited and unless something happened to Paul you wouldn't have much to worry about.
Other than that I agree with most of what you said above.
Palin has become Hollywoodized. She is enormously wealthy now but she's still hated because of her more traditional roots and the fact that the left wants a Marxist liberal feminist first in the White house.