Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
And if I were in love with my Dad, I couldn't marry him! If I were in love with another man, I couldn't marry him! If I am in love with Rosamund Pike, I can't marry her! If I am in love with my dog or my mailbox, I can't marry them! If I am in love with a 10-year-old boy OR girl, I can't marry them, If I am in love and below the age of 18, I can't marry ANYONE!

You are presenting a FALSE ARGUMENT!
Click to expand...

Going outside the age of consent, once again, invalidates your argument. As does the incest, which is banned for other reasons as well.
 
RStringfield said:
Do you think a judge would welcome being overturned?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, and it's not "overturning" a judge, it's how our Constitutional system of government works. If SCOTUS rulings do not adhere to what the people want, a Constitutional amendment can be made, then the SCOTUS must uphold it.

It's a tall hurdle. I think if it were likely it would have been done already. It's quite different to oppose gay marriage at the state level and support a ban on it via a federal constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Not different at all... it's the same argument, just done on a national level. It hasn't been done already because there is no need for it at this time. IF SCOTUS makes Gay Marriage a reality, you will see it happen before your disbelieving eyes, trust me! Oh, and it won't be a "ban" on anything, just an amendment that recognizes "marriage" as being between a man and woman in America.

Your threats are empty and laughable. Your team has lost every one of these battles and you will lose this one. Time is not on your side.
Click to expand...

I don't have a "team" and maybe that's what's the matter with YOU? Maybe you see this like a football game or sporting event? Rah Rah... Go Gay Marriage! LMFAO!

The legal battles not withstanding, the voters of 37 states have REJECTED Gay Marriage by margins of 70% or more, in the most LIBERAL states in America! You can't even get this crazy ass shit passed in Cali-freakin-fornia! And hell, half the goddamn state is GAY!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there you go pretending all abortions are of genetically deformed children again......what about the other 99%?.....
Click to expand...

I wasn't pretending any such thing. I wrote, "Also, children were left to die if the bearer of the child knew they could not look after it. Food shortage, lack of other resources, etc."

That is one of the reasons people have abortions. They know they can not supply the necessary support, love, caring, etc. a child requires in order to grow into a responsible, well-adjusted adult.
 
WinterBorn said:
Going outside the age of consent, once again, invalidates your argument. As does the incest, which is banned for other reasons as well.
Click to expand...

No, it invalidates YOUR argument! You said people can't marry who they love! I didn't say that! YOU said that! I gave you examples of why you are a fucking moronic idiot! ...And now you are confirming that!
 
apple0154 said:
I wasn't pretending any such thing. I wrote, "Also, children were left to die if the bearer of the child knew they could not look after it. Food shortage, lack of other resources, etc."

That is one of the reasons people have abortions. They know they can not supply the necessary support, love, caring, etc. a child requires in order to grow into a responsible, well-adjusted adult.
Click to expand...

Well, by killing it, I'd say the love and support aspects are kind of obvious...
 
Southern Woman said:
You think that child molestation = queer marriage?

Maybe you've spent too much time on the NAMBLA website.
Click to expand...

Did you again skip over the part where it states he has reached the age of an adult.
That was a rhetorical question; because obviously you don't have the ability to see anything except what you want to see.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
suit yourself, I don't agree.....I think it is reasonable to expect a person could be either right or left handed, I would consider both to be normal.....however, it is biologically abnormal for a man to be sexually stimulated by someone of the same sex, just as it is abnormal for cancer cells to develop instead of normal cells....
Click to expand...

It's a disease? What?

Of course, it is reasonable to expect a person to be right or left handed? What else are they going to be? You mean it is reaonable to expect some will be left handed. Again, that is obvious.

Why isn't it reasonable to expect some people will be gay? It is not as if homosexuality is some new thing. It appears to go back as long as recorded history, left handednes or red hair and in various and diverse cultures (red hair not so much). In the population as a whole, homosexuality is at least as expected as being redheaded.

Your expectations are not those of a reasonable person. They are the expectations of someone that believes the world must act in harmony with their religious beliefs and or personal biases.
 
Dixie said:
No, I won't "have to accept it" and neither will 200 million religious people in America who WILL RATIFY a Constitutional amendment so fast it'll make your little pinhead swim. And that is EXACTLY what will happen, should the SCOTUS make such a ruling. And like I said, WHEN that happens, you can forget Civil Unions, you can forget gay couples EVER getting the same benefits as married couples, it's ALL off the table then, and the ball will be in your court to repeal a Constitutional amendment! (You'll need 3/4 of the states to do that.)
Click to expand...

There is no way you will ever have enough votes to ratify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

You could have 20 or 30 years ago, but every year the scale slides towards gay marriage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so go ahead and be in favor of it.....why is it so important that the rest of us have to be in favor of it too.....why can't I just ignore it....or even hate it if I choose to.....but no, I have to have laws forcing me to treat it the same way you do.....why?......that isn't a right of privacy, that's a right to force your privacy into our lives....
Click to expand...

You keep trying to make this about you. It isn't. It won't effect you at all.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Did you again skip over the part where it states he has reached the age of an adult.
That was a rhetorical question; because obviously you don't have the ability to see anything except what you want to see.
Click to expand...

And what age was that? The same article says the perverted sickos you admire so much lost interest when the boys started growing hair on their bodies....
 
Dixie said:
No, it invalidates YOUR argument! You said people can't marry who they love! I didn't say that! YOU said that! I gave you examples of why you are a fucking moronic idiot! ...And now you are confirming that!
Click to expand...

No, you used examples that did not fit what I said for reasons other than the gender of the people involved.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, Dixie. Work on it?
 
WinterBorn said:
There is no way you will ever have enough votes to ratify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

You could have 20 or 30 years ago, but every year the scale slides towards gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your mental retardation.... poor guy!

No one has proposed "banning" anything. The Constitutional amendment would be to recognize "marriage" as between a man and woman in America. It wouldn't have to be done with a majority of Americans voting like they do for the president, it is a state ratification process. 3/4 of the states need to ratify it for the amendment to become part of the Constitution. Now... think about that for a moment... California, Missouri, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey... all REJECTED Gay Marriage by 70% or more... but just 3/4 of the states (not all states) need to pass ratification by a majority vote... you don't think that is possible? ....Okay, we'll see! Say goodbye to Civil Unions though, that will be off the table forever as well. We'll live with the new Constitution, and you can go pound sand! (no sexual reference there, apple!)
 
Dixie said:
No, it invalidates YOUR argument! You said people can't marry who they love! I didn't say that! YOU said that! I gave you examples of why you are a fucking moronic idiot! ...And now you are confirming that!
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. Throw your praise around.

At 8:00, post #552, you referred to me as a "goddamn moron". Less than an hour later, at 8:58, you refer to Winter Born as a "fucking moronic idiot".

Not even one hour before you cheapen my title, rain on my parade. Well, thanks for nothing. :(

How's the blood pressure doing?
 
Southern Woman said:
And what age was that? The same article says the perverted sickos you admire so much lost interest when the boys started growing hair on their bodies....
Click to expand...

Well gee, what age would you ascribe to a boy reaching adult age??
Unless you've just been lying to those young boys you've been with and telling them that they're now a man!! :good4u:
 
"The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". To love a boy below the age of twelve was considered inappropriate, but no evidence exists of any legal penalties attached to this sort of practice. Traditionally, a pederastic relationship could continue until the widespread growth of the boy's body hair, considered to be extremely unattractive."
 
Threedee said:
Well, by killing it, I'd say the love and support aspects are kind of obvious...
Click to expand...

Actually, the love/caring aspect is very obvious. They do not want to bring a child into the world knowing the child will suffer for at least it's first 18 years of life and, quite likely, much longer as an embittered, maladjusted adult having been neglected throughout it's childhood.
 
Dixie said:
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your mental retardation.... poor guy!

No one has proposed "banning" anything. The Constitutional amendment would be to recognize "marriage" as between a man and woman in America. It wouldn't have to be done with a majority of Americans voting like they do for the president, it is a state ratification process. 3/4 of the states need to ratify it for the amendment to become part of the Constitution. Now... think about that for a moment... California, Missouri, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey... all REJECTED Gay Marriage by 70% or more... but just 3/4 of the states (not all states) need to pass ratification by a majority vote... you don't think that is possible? ....Okay, we'll see! Say goodbye to Civil Unions though, that will be off the table forever as well. We'll live with the new Constitution, and you can go pound sand! (no sexual reference there, apple!)
Click to expand...

But the amendment isn't going to happen and instead, the Supreme Court is going to rule that everyone, even dumbasses like yourself, are going to have to accept gay marriages. :good4u:

Now stop being scared; because you can still tell your boy friend that you don't want to get married and you'ld rather play the field. :cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top