Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

I've got to admit you've been quicker on the uptake when it comes to Yurt and his "debating style" than I was...I tried over and over the engage the whiner in debate and time after time he'd make certain any discussion got bogged down in idiotic semantics.

He isn't interested in debate, just in calling others names.

hilarious...from the guy who called me a douchenozzle in this thread for supposedly missing a post.

you're such a two faced whiner zappa. btw....what do you think haiku meant by: we need anti racist legislation?

care to debate that or are you just going to ad hom as usual?
 
hilarious...from the guy who called me a douchenozzle in this thread for supposedly missing a post.

you're such a two faced whiner zappa. btw....what do you think haiku meant by: we need anti racist legislation?

care to debate that or are you just going to ad hom as usual?


...I tried over and over the engage the whiner in debate and time after time he'd make certain any discussion got bogged down in idiotic semantics...
 
...I tried over and over the engage the whiner in debate and time after time he'd make certain any discussion got bogged down in idiotic semantics...

you did? when?

tell you what. let us do it now. pick the topic and i will start the thread.

back up your claim of engagement zappa....because i have threads to back up that i've tried to engage you multiple times in debate.
 
Which is why they want equal rights to marriage, anything less is less in every way. Separate but equal does not equal equality.

Furthermore, the typical conservative would continually try to erode any rights gay couples may receive. For example, special rights applicable to opposite sex couples.

Gay people know if the name is not the same (marriage) there will always be people trying to exploit the difference.

Abortion is the perfect example. After 40 years they're still trying all sorts of tricks and doing everything they can to limit a woman's choice and as for gay marriage the conservatives brought this on themselves by denying hospital visits and partner health insurance coverage and transfer of estate upon ones death. I recall one case where two men had lived together for well over 20 years. Upon the death of one the family of that individual had the partner thrown out of the house with nothing. That's why many places today have laws where the family home is equally divided as, in the past, everything used to be in one (the man's) name.

It's long past time discrimination was ended and laws put in place to prevent any future shenanigans by the neanderthals.
 
No, it's you demonstrating for the forum what a hilariously-hypocritical example you are of a 'Jesus follower'.
Are you trying to tell me that you deserve my respect? Perhaps you think we should simply shut up and let your side of the spectrum work its magic. Your side has nothing to give, Bijou. You are takers, not givers. How in the world can a taker demand the respect of anyone?
 
you did? when?

tell you what. let us do it now. pick the topic and i will start the thread.

back up your claim of engagement zappa....because i have threads to back up that i've tried to engage you multiple times in debate.


Do you also have the thread where you gave me your word you'd debate, only to go back on it the minute you thought you might lose?
 
The only Sanctity in a marriage is brought by the participants, not by the government.

Since there are churches already "sanctifying" homosexuals in such a relationship it is ridiculous to say that government can protect that "sanctity". There is nothing about government that can ever sanctify, or threaten the sanctity of your marriage. Government should stay out of your relationships, never to be eagerly invited into becoming the source of their "sanctity" or the "protector of sanctity"...

Only you can desanctify your marriage, government has nothing to do with that.
 
Back
Top