USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
"...3/4 of the country..."
That would mean it's dropped from that 80% figure you were throwing out, about a week ago.
Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
"...3/4 of the country..."
That would mean it's dropped from that 80% figure you were throwing out, about a week ago.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Um no, you misunderstood Loving. An interracial couple challenged the State law prohibiting interracial marriage. (The Racial Integrity Act) The court found the racial classification was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." The case was not about sexual deviate behavior hijacking the institution of marriage and changing the definition to fit the sexual deviation. If marriage had always been defined as the union of two people of the same race, the decision in Loving may have been different, but that has never been how marriage was defined. The prohibition was specifically targeted at black/white marriages, was specifically racist, and it was not an equally applicable standard or defining characteristic of marriage. What you are trying to do, is CHANGE what marriage is, fundamentally! It's a completely different argument. There is no prohibition of homosexuals to engage in marriage, as marriage is defined.
The definition is the same as it has been for 5,000 years, and forever in the history of the United States. It is the matrimonial union of a male and female adult, who also meet certain other established standards to obtain a license. None of the standards discriminates against homosexuals. In the case of Loving, one of the standards discriminated against blacks who wanted to marry whites.
I have stated it! The STATE is who is ISSUING A LICENSE! They are a principle party to the actual licensing of an instrument sanctioning a specific form of domestic partnership and contract. How can someone who is not fucking retarded, argue that the state doesn't have an interest???? Now.... the folks who GAVE them this responsibility, had a specific thing in mind, a specific definition of what marriage is! If you wish to change that definition, you must go through the people, and they will be the ones to tell the state what it's interests are. I really believe you're thinking of Russia, where the State is sitting off over there, a separate entity from the people, with Stringy's Rules of Morality, telling the proles what they will or will not have an interest in! WE ARE THE FUCKING STATE... WE DEFINE THE STATE INTEREST!
Nope, you are just an ingnernt fuck, who doesn't understand the English language, doesn't understand context, doesn't understand law, doesn't understand much of anything, except your own immoral perverted ideas of unfettered immorality and freedom to take a steamy shit on anything you please.
Homosexuals ARE allowed to marry! How many times does this have to be pointed out to you? No one, not one single state, not any court, not any judge, not any majority of any people, has established any law to prohibit homosexual people from obtaining a license to MARRY! You keep saying "allowed to marry" but they ARE allowed to MARRY! You want to change what "MARRY" means, to include same-sex homosexual relationships, and that isn't MARRIAGE! That is something else! To many people, that is a PERVERSION of Marriage, and a MOCKERY of religious tradition as well as cultural traditions and moral standards of our society. I don't give a damn that you want to silence those voices, and not allow them to have a say in the debate, they deserve the SAME RIGHT as you, in expressing their views!
LOL... No, I am not challenging the concept of content, just happy to point out to you, that it is a CONCEPT. Why do you try to tie my argumentative point to ME personally? MY PERSONAL VIEW has nothing to do with ANY of this, I favor comprehensive CU legislation, removing the government from the "marriage" business altogether, and modernizing our constructs with a "contractual arrangement" which could be made between ANY two, legal-age adults! They wouldn't have to be Gay, Straight, Black, White, Male, Female, Related, Non-Related, Young, Old, Religious, Non-religious, Sexually active, Sexually inactive, Platonic or Soulmates, Friends or Lovers, Brothers or Sisters, Mother or Daughter, Father or Son, or any other combination.... just TWO LEGAL AGE ADULTS and a CU contract. That is MY personal view. The argumentative points I am presenting are to reject your stupidity by giving examples of what you can expect when you implement your idiocy into law.
No, of course you haven't considered the consequences of legalizing Gay Marriage! That's the whole entire fucking problem here! You can't seem to pull your pinhead out of gay ass long enough to THINK ABOUT IT MUCH!
Let me ask you this... If Hugh Hefner wants to marry about 120 of his Bunnies, and claim them on his tax returns as deductions... you okay with that, Stringy? What about when Theo Bundy Jr. goes around the country marrying dozens of unsuspecting women, and taking out insurance policies on them? Are we just going to "THINK MUCH" when they start digging up the corpses? Any time you just willy-nilly decide to CHANGE what a word means, how it is defined and known in the lexicon, especially when it is established in law and a part of state actions, there are going to be CONSEQUENCES!
It has not been "tried" at all! It has been suggested, it has been discussed, but it has YET to be TRIED! Goofball!
Which is WHY you will have this issue settled by a Constitutional Amendment fashioned after DOMA, if you continue to usurp the will of the people have this shit established into law by judicial activists "redefining" marriage! You're DAMN STRAIGHT the majority has power, and you better wake the fuck up and join us in the REAL WORLD!
What a load of shit. I have not misunderstood a fucking thing. I had to correct you dozens of times on Loving as you repeatedly claimed that it was based on the CRA of 64 and other misrepresentations of it. Apparently, you have, at least, read a synopsis of it, but you are still misrepresenting it.
The court rejected tradition as an argument in favor of the law. The court specifically stated that Virginia had barred interracial marriage since the colonial period, so it certainly was how marriage had been "defined" in Virginia. From the opinion...
Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period.
The Virginia court that upheld the law, claimed that God never intended the races to mix, just as you folks argue that there is no intent to sanction gay marriage, even if a church chooses to do so. Quoted in the opinion...
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The prohibition was NOT specifically targeted at white/black marriages (see above), but did not allow whites marry any other than whites. From the opinion...
The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person,"
NOT ACCORDING TO YOU. You claim changing who may marry changes the definition. Virginia had ALWAYS prohibited miscegenation.
Both blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying outside of their race, just as you claim homosexuals and heterosexuals (or male and female) are equally prohibited from marrying any but a member of the opposite sex.
And you continue to imply that miscegenation laws were overturned because blacks were denied the "privilege" of marrying whites. No, the 14th amendment rights of BOTH the husband and wife were violated.
Further, it is incontrovertible that polygamy was an accepted practice throughout much of the last 5000 years, it is mentioned repeatedly without condemnation in the Bible.
You are a fucking idiot. You think that a law is justification for itself. YOU are thinking of Russia, retard. It is not that way here. The state controlled the issuing of licenses in Virginia before Loving. That was not even considered or offered as being a legitimate state interest.
Majority will does not qualify as a legitimate state interest in affirming a law. If it were, then no law, not just miscegenation laws, NO FUCKING LAW would ever be overturned. Majority will is assumed in every law.
How many times does it have pointed out to you that blacks and whites were equally entitled to marry before Loving. That argument was rejected. From the opinion...
The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.
That is, clearly, not what I said, you lying sack of shit. I said I have not given much consideration to constitutional challenges to polygamy laws. Unlike you I don't form my opinions based solely on a reference to emotion or what my preacher told me. There may be an argument against polygamy that I have not considered but that I would find compelling.
The best argument for prohibiting it that I can think of right now, is confusion/bickering that might arise if one party become incapacitated. What if the two marriage partners left disagree over something? That could a legal mess.
When the laws were passed the ACTUAL definition of marriage was different. That is, the husband made all decisions and the wife(s) were treated as chattel. But we changed the definition of marriage and equalized the rights under the marriage contract.
Sure. If you think marriage should be determined by how it affects the government's revenue streams then you are an idiot. He'll also have to claim all their income. But the tax laws could always be changed.
Who the fuck made an argument for overturning polygamy laws, idiot? They certainly won't be overturned by a gay marriage ruling. It would be a different and separate case.
And you continue to ignore the fact that polygamy WAS a part of marriage. Now we are supposed to believe that marriage practices that, for all we know, are as old as marriage itself, isn't part of THE "definition" of marriage. We need look no further to see you are just using YOUR "definition" of marriage to control.
As far as your Ted Bundy Jr nonsense. I already stated that ALL marriage partners would have to agree to the contract. You can't promise one person something under a contract and then go out and promise someone else the same thing. That would be like selling your house twice.
If TB Jr marries twelve women and then kills wife 1 then the money from the insurance policy becomes part of the communal property of the other 11 wives, not his alone.
Your idiotic scenario has jack shit to do with polygamy. TB Jr could marry one at a time and murder them just as easily. Maybe, we should just outlaw marriage altogether, because somebody might collect on an insurance policy.
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced several times. I have fucking provided you with the links several times. Do I need to post the entire article?
You don't have the votes to pass an amendment, idiot. You never will. If you had moved on it 30 years ago, maybe. But the chances of it are nil now and growing smaller. Opposition to interracial marriage was stronger after Loving than opposition is to gay marriage now.
You need to leave the Alabammer trailer park you live in and get out into the real world.
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You better look out; or else he'll start calling you names, put you on ignore, and then make posts, where he tries to insult you.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Stringy. Even virginia didn't define marriage. It supported it in a limited and racist way. Words are not defined in any top down process, or by any single authority. Dictionaries follow the reality of usage, they don't dictate it. Just as the government cannot dictate what marriage means.
If cultural destroyers like strinfield accept civil unions, they admit their powerlessness in defining words, and they are too totalitarian and arrogant for that.
If cultural destroyers like strinfield accept civil unions, they admit their powerlessness in defining words, and they are too totalitarian and arrogant for that.
Last edited:
So, definitions are not determined by the dictionary or law, but by common usage over time and place? BUT, we must not allow common usage to change the definition.
To some extent, I would agree, common usage changes and morphs definitions over time. It is very arbitrary. There is no reason to support such a definition from an arbitrary process with law, except that you think your generation should get the last call on it.
Personally, I choose to use a more rigorous process. Words are defined through abstraction, which means you have to separate the word from specific application to find a general definition that works. For instance, "one third" does not mean "one third of an apple", "one third of a cake", "one third of yardstick", "one third of a foot-long ruler" (include whatever example you tried to use to get through Ditzy's thick skull), not does it mean .3333e or "one third of 1 in decimal representation." It means one portion of any single thing divided into three equal parts.
Like wise, you guys are confusing marriage as being defined by the examples you apply it to, which does not provide a workable definition. You did the same with all the words that mean group.
Marriage is the commitment, both the emotional and the contractual. It is an agreement to share. In order to prove our commitment we seek to announce it to society through a ceremony and ask them to hold us to it.
That's marriage, and it is marriage if it is two men, two women, a man and a woman, two of different races, two of different religions and could be marriage of two men and one woman or one man and two women.
The only valid state interest is in whether the contract is enforceable. It has nothing to do with morality. I don't care who Ditzy wants to sleep with, as it relates to marriage. His desire to have sex with young boys (that's addressed under stat rape laws), his dog (that's addressed under bestiality laws), the mailbox (possibly addressed by indecent exposure laws), four women, one adult male or one adult female IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is what contract can the state enforce. The first three are off limits not because of the morality, but because the state cannot enforce a contract without competent consent of all parties. Polygamy is, possibly, prohibitable because it would likely cause a legal mess that the state should avoid. There is no such problem in enforcing a contract between two adult males, females or one of each, nor is it complicated by race, religion or class.
The state's interest in the desire to marry has nothing to do with gender, race, religion, class or any other ignorant form of discrimination some toothless hick can dream up.
And yet you have been shown that it is used and can be used correctly for just that purpose, as can flock. That is why you DO see all the group commonly applied to people. Gaggle of dogs is just not all that common and so it seems strange, just as Ditzy has confused 1/3 with it's decimal representation because that is to what he is accustomed.
How can you define a word through common usage then deny people the ability to use it for some other purpose? You, apparently, think all the generations before you were wrong and all the generations after you should be limited by common usage of THIS time and place. That's just stupid and nothing more than an attempt to control people through the definition YOU accept. Certainly, it created the wrinkle in your brain do to the use you are familiar with, but you don't have a workable definition, because you are failing to do the abstraction necessary.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
You've got it backwards. you're the one trying to deny words as history and usage have defined them, for your social engineering agenda.
you have NOT shown me how gaggle can apply to dogs. You have shown me how you're a laugably idiotic imbecile. Thanks for the show, corky from life goes on.
BULLSHIT. I am just not denying future generations a right to form their own definitions.
When it comes to the law and things that need something more substantial, I could not care less about what arbitrary symbols we choose to use. For instance, 1/3, .3333e (decimal) or .1 (in base 3), and whether you apply that to a cake, a ruler or a yardstick DOES NOT FUCKING CHANGE what 1/3 means. It's all the same fucking thing.
The important thing in forming a workable definition is the concept and in order to form a workable definition, it has to be separated from single particular uses in order to make one that applies generally. For instance, flock means "group" Whether you apply it to birds, sheep or people, and so it most certainly can be applied to a group of dogs. It's odd, yes, just like .1 (base 3) is odd. So what.
Marriage is the same thing whether it's two men, two women or one of each.
I operate on a higher level than you and Ditzy, not because I have some secret dictionary, but because you are fucking idiots that have trouble doing abstraction.
I gave you a link to where it was used in just that way. Here are some more for you.
http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=57d9c86769d1bf04
The simple fact is, that your thoughts and philosophy are inextricably MARRIED (not legally) to THIS time and place. Mine are timeless, universal and objective, or at least, that is what I strive for.
That is what the common law and our nations founders sought. It is by no means perfect, but it is better than letting things be run by some retard that thinks that slavery, polygamy, beating your wife, lynching black people, selling your daughter, having sex with a child, having sex with your daughter, etc... was cool until some religious person told him otherwise.
Frankly, it is pretty clear to me that Christ was trying to tell people something similar. But then some asshole decided to use him to gain power and collect tithes. Not to say Christ was perfect (as the assholes demand), but he was on to something that I think most people completely miss.
Anyway... You're an idiot, and you need go bandage your ass from the beating I have given it, before it becomes infected. It's never going to heal if you keep presenting it to me to kick again and again and again and again.
That is what the common law and our nations founders sought. It is by no means perfect, but it is better than letting things be run by some retard that thinks that slavery, polygamy, beating your wife, lynching black people, selling your daughter, having sex with a child, having sex with your daughter, etc... was cool until some religious person told him otherwise.
Frankly, it is pretty clear to me that Christ was trying to tell people something similar. But then some asshole decided to use him to gain power and collect tithes. Not to say Christ was perfect (as the assholes demand), but he was on to something that I think most people completely miss.
Anyway... You're an idiot, and you need go bandage your ass from the beating I have given it, before it becomes infected. It's never going to heal if you keep presenting it to me to kick again and again and again and again.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
And all you've achieved is imbecility. You should regroup.
Im certain their philosophy towards words was not as idiotic as yours.
WTF? Now you're just babbling.
Religion is a lie.
You're the one who says "gaggle of dogs". Get the to the ER for a brain implant.
Salud, fuckface.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
There is a timeless reason why marriage is between a man and a woman. because that's the reproductive unit, biologically, and most naturally, culturally.
You want to completely change the biological and cultural reproductive unit of humanity from the family to some statist citizen factory.
Burn. You're burned completely. The gig is up. Put down your malicious ideology and back away from humanity.
You want to completely change the biological and cultural reproductive unit of humanity from the family to some statist citizen factory.
Burn. You're burned completely. The gig is up. Put down your malicious ideology and back away from humanity.
Just another retreat to an already compromised position. No worries once this one is trashed, again, your pea brain will let you return to the one man one woman nonsense.
So, THE "definition" of marriage only applies to those who are making babies?
What has baby making to do with the law or the valid interests of the state? Gay people are not any more likely to reproduce because you don't allow them to marry. Are you arguing that homosexuals should be forced to breed in order to pump out more soldiers/taxpayers?
Further, this line of argument begs the question if we should deny marriage rights to the infertile, while ignoring the fact that homosexuals CAN reproduce.
Oh... but not naturally, will be the reply as there is always some rationalized crevice that you cockroaches can crawl into.
??? Non sequitur. I don't care about baby making. That's your argument, retard, and you are clearly projecting. I care about individual liberty. If they want to make babies, okay. If they don't, okay. If they want to do it through the "natural" process, fine. If they want to use some other means, that's okay too. As long as it is their choice and does not amount to forcing their will on another, I don't fucking care.
Grasshopper, I will whip your ass no matter which way you turn. Your attacks are weak and easily countered.
Dude, your argument on flock and gaggle has been thoroughly beaten. If you are still too stupid to see it, then go stand in the dunce corner. See that guy with the funny hat that says 1/3? That's where your new home is going to be.
Flock of dogs, gaggle of dogs, pack of dogs, 1/3, .333e (decimal), .1 (base 3)... I know some of them seem strange and foreign to you, but there is nothing to fear. It's not the Jews that are behind it, retard. Your buddy likes to call them pinheads. We all know that's just your pet words for the people that are smarter than you and who routinely expose your foolishness.
Flock of dogs, gaggle of dogs, pack of dogs, 1/3, .333e (decimal), .1 (base 3)... I know some of them seem strange and foreign to you, but there is nothing to fear. It's not the Jews that are behind it, retard. Your buddy likes to call them pinheads. We all know that's just your pet words for the people that are smarter than you and who routinely expose your foolishness.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Whitney Houston and many people agree that children are the future. The state gives incentive to the supports of family because it knows families are indeed the creation center for new citizens. This why there are family related concepts in tax law etc.
Yes. Why are they there then? what is the compelling state interest? You're not arguing for the abolishment of the legal entity. What is the state interest, counselor.
Two men cannot make babies.
Giving the cultural and reproductive unit of humanity a legal advantage is a reason for state interest. they can extend this same interested advantage to gay couples in the form of civil union. marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one each gender of POTENTIAL natural reproduction. that's really what it is, just one of each of the biologically differentiated known genders which complement each other by being able to reproduce with each other. Of course they didn't force barren couples to get divorce.
You want barren couples to be forced to be divorced. Bad you.
lol, Whitney Houston. I hope that's a joke.
The state gives support in order to create jobs for bureaurats. The welfare statism is a mishmash of different programs, including some that give support to things you oppose.
Besides that, gay people still have kids. I have a gay cousin that has three boys, one of them off in Afghanistan.
Many children are being born outside of wedlock anyway, and the courts have adapted to try to make sure parents are held responsible. Marriage and the family share no resemblance to "Leave it to Beaver" anymore (not that it really ever did). It is not likely to return to that and it is stupid to pretend that it will. That some long forgotten fantasy of the ideal household is a good reason to keep homosexuals from pursuing their own happiness, is absurd.
So you believe that marriage serves the state interest in making more conscripts? Okay. That's good in the nAHZi state, but our system will reject it.
I have explained the state's interest to you numerous times. Read the DofI.
With a willing woman, they can. There is no reason that they have to make the child through sex or homosexual sex. This is just another of the arbitrary and stupid rationalizations for discrimination.
Why should the state give them such an advantage? As has been explained, homosexuals can reproduce. Is there some valid state interest in ensuring the child is genetically linked to both members of the couple? Again, see the reality of the average American household.
Who's basis for government does this supposed state interest serve? Hitler's, maybe... not our founders. The DofI does not read...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are not created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain duties to the state, that among these are paying taxes, dying in foreign wars, and making babies to do the same. — That to procure compliance with these duties, Governments are instituted among Men...
You have failed to explain why that is important under a system of government whose sole purpose is the protection of individual rights. Under your view of Utopia, a Nazi state, that might be valid, but not under our government.
No, dumbfuck. I don't want barren couples to be broken up. That's your argument. Your argument is that gay marriage is prohibitable because you argue homosexuals can't have babies (they can), so why not the barren? Are they married? Can they be married?
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Gay couples can get kids, sure. But there is something special about a union that needs no outside agency to create new life. And the creation of new life is not a religious notion. It's bio 101. that's why you should just go with civil unions, okay, chet? And stop trying to actively erase natural reproduction from humanity's culture understanding.
apple0154
MEOW
Hear! Hear!
When it comes to creating new life or doing anything that may lead to creating a new life I sure as hell don't want some outside agency interfering!
