Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
apple0154
MEOW
According to the Catholic Church, which by the way prohibits divorce and remarriage, allows it if the married couple has not consummated the marriage. Consummated ---->SEX. Got it? If the marriage is not consummated there was no marriage. It is annulled.
Annul: 1. (esp. of laws or other established rules, usages, etc.) to make void or null; abolish; cancel; invalidate: to annul a marriage.
2. to reduce to nothing; obliterate.
3. to cancel (a regularly scheduled train, plane, social event, etc.) for one day or one time only.
(More on sexuality below.)
I have never read such craziness. Now I understand why other posters have questioned your sexuality. You actually think if homosexual marriage is permitted the general population will become homosexual!
That is the most outrageous thing I've heard. You think men only marry to have children but prefer to be with a guy???
You're gay, Dixie. I'm tellin' ya. Just admit it. If the only reason you choose a woman as a partner is because you believe you have an obligation to father children but you'd prefer a man as a partner then......you're gay, Dixie.
That's what being gay is, Dixie. It's preferring a man to a woman and that's what you think all men will feel if gay marriage becomes acceptable.
You're gay, Dix. It's not healthy to deny it. If you don't believe me talk to a professional. Otherwise, you'll end up like those married Conservatives who play footsie in the men's room.
If you have a female partner you owe it to her to be honest. You can not love her the way you're supposed to when you feel the way you do.
Talk to a professional for your own sake and the sake of a female partner you may have and for the sake of other gays whose lives you are trying to interfere with.
You're gay, Dixie. Admit it and hold your head up, so to say.
I can't believe you are trying to convince us that it is important and that you couldn't understand the meaning of his sentence because of a unique turn of phrase. Chuckle a bit and move on Grammar Nazi, or we'll herd you and the rest of your flock of psychotics into a grove of psychiatrists so you can get the help you need.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
we were discussing how words have certain definitions, and a definition can include qualifications on members of a collection or relationsship, or union.
Stringy said words cannot do that. But they can and do. this is a pivotal part of the discussion.
Stringfield got obliterated, that's why you jumped in, because he went down in flame. now here you are with your bullshit.
Rubbish, you selected some inane thing to pretend you "couldn't understand" because you want language to be set in stone. Unique phrases and colloquialisms are part of language, the meaning is clear even if you think it is "stupid" to say "flock of dinguses" when describing yourself instead of "pack of penises"...
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and there's no-a-hiding from that fact.....
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Reread the thread damo.
What did i pretend i couldn't understand?
I explained above the role this point played in the discussion.
If you want to be a willfully ignorant moron, i can't stop you.
Damo says "flock of dogs". Lmao.
Oh I see... You get to define what is a legitimate church. Sorry, the first amendment says you may not do so, in the law. We are talking about government recognition of marriage. What some church recognizes is not relevant and it was not in the past, as the state rejected the views of minority religions that disagreed with the miscegenation laws. Those marriages were a nullity according to the state just as homosexual marriages are now.
Of course, you ignore the fact that those churches that recognized interracial marriages (where race is, at least somewhat, descriptive of superficial differences) when it was frowned upon by the majority, would have been described as "new-age pissant churches" by racists like you.
LOL, Irish and English are different races? You are a moron that only demonstrates the uselessness of "race" in seperating people into distinct groups. This has become clear due to scientific knoweldge, which you don't possess, and so, of course, you see it as being some "new-age" conspiracy. It's not. It's a "conspiracy" (not really, it's not at all secretive and the information is readily available) of the informed against brainless knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers, like yourself.
It's no wonder that you guys celebrate idiots like Palin and Bush. They are the champions and standard-bearers of idiots.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
According to the Catholic Church, which by the way prohibits divorce and remarriage, allows it if the married couple has not consummated the marriage. Consummated ---->SEX. Got it? If the marriage is not consummated there was no marriage. It is annulled.
Annul: 1. (esp. of laws or other established rules, usages, etc.) to make void or null; abolish; cancel; invalidate: to annul a marriage.
2. to reduce to nothing; obliterate.
3. to cancel (a regularly scheduled train, plane, social event, etc.) for one day or one time only.
(More on sexuality below.)
I have never read such craziness. Now I understand why other posters have questioned your sexuality. You actually think if homosexual marriage is permitted the general population will become homosexual!
That is the most outrageous thing I've heard. You think men only marry to have children but prefer to be with a guy???
You're gay, Dixie. I'm tellin' ya. Just admit it. If the only reason you choose a woman as a partner is because you believe you have an obligation to father children but you'd prefer a man as a partner then......you're gay, Dixie.
That's what being gay is, Dixie. It's preferring a man to a woman and that's what you think all men will feel if gay marriage becomes acceptable.
You're gay, Dix. It's not healthy to deny it. If you don't believe me talk to a professional. Otherwise, you'll end up like those married Conservatives who play footsie in the men's room.
If you have a female partner you owe it to her to be honest. You can not love her the way you're supposed to when you feel the way you do.
Talk to a professional for your own sake and the sake of a female partner you may have and for the sake of other gays whose lives you are trying to interfere with.
You're gay, Dixie. Admit it and hold your head up, so to say.
Apple is actually on to something. Marriage is about creating the unit of human reproduction and upbringing, the family.
She is unknowningly thwarting her anti human masters who wish to destroy the family and raise new citizens in laboratories.
Seriously, I don't even want to read a thread with you arguing that "flock of dogs" is something that nobody should ever say because "words mean things"... Again, I do it purposefully to draw attention to phrases I think are either important or when I need to add a bit of humor, Strings can do it for whichever reason he wants, but pretending that it is this important to you? I can't imagine how it has become so important to you in any real capacity. But okay, OCD Man... Tell us about your herd of cats.Reread the thread damo.
What did i pretend i couldn't understand?
I explained above the role this point played in the discussion.
If you want to be a willfully ignorant moron, i can't stop you.
Damo says "flock of dogs". Lmao.
LOL. Maybe, nAHZi will understand if we just tell him he is doubleplus stupid.
Ohhh Nooooeeees!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I get the impression that "flock" is being used as "flack" in this thread.....perhaps because No-Noah can't figure out any other way to defend his target.....
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
That;s it. Resort to a personal attack when I prove that words can and do have the ability to define actors, or criteria for inclusiveness.
I guess the fancy libertarian jew just got his ass beat publicly.
Flock of dogs! lol.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
You should read the thread too. Your impression is wrong.
The dictionary is right, dumbfuck, you are just too stupid to understand it.
I did not use flock of dogs. I was responding to your faceplant and pointed out that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that usage. As I indicated, it would be very awkward as "flock" connotes birds, or sometimes sheep and/or people depending on context. But connotations are not definitions. They are assigned through common usage and are useful in English because we use many "color" (does not not actually mean green, blue or red words and is, actually, just another "color" word) words.
Flock means a group. Not a group of birds or a group of people or a group of sheep. Just as pack does not mean a group of dogs or a group of cigarettes or a group of bubblegum or whatever else to which we might assign "pack." You might think it is stupid but those are the facts, retard.
Flock means group. Pack means group. Herd means group. A "herd of sheep" or "flock of sheep" same fucking thing.
If you were to say "flock of dogs" it is clear that you mean a group of dogs, because you said dogs. But, maybe you meant, "your dogs" as in your fellow skinheads. Or maybe you meant "dogs" as in hotdogs. Context is important, as always.
Heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage... "Marriage" means the same thing in both.
It is absurd that someone has to explain this to you in such detail, but that is what we are reduced to because you insist on stupidity as a way of life.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
The dictionary is never 100% consistent with the reality of spoken language.
Most common usage is the real arbiter of what words mean.
Nobody says flock of dogs. Words can have conditions of applicability within them. that's the truth of the matter.
So pack means groups of dogs? Or does it mean "group of cigarettes." Or does it mean "group of bubblegum." Or "group of hotdogs." Or on and on and and on...
No, it does not mean "group of dogs." It means group. That it, that's all it means.
Thank you for helping to prove my point. Marriage is defined by the contractual obligations and rights of the marriage. It is not defined by who may participate.