Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[DOTR]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

 

[Tennyson]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

I have no idea what you are replying to.

 

[WinterBorn]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

 

[DOTR]

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[WinterBorn]

DOTR, I see you deleted a post. But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy. Yes, show me.

 

[DOTR]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

 

[DOTR]

DOTR, I see you deleted a post. But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy. Yes, show me.

You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[DOTR]

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

 

[WinterBorn]

DOTR, I see you deleted a post. But you asked a question, after accusing me of hypocrisy. Yes, show me.

You are an abomination and a hypocrite. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Please point out where I have been a hypocrite?

As for the "abomination", that is only accurate in your imaginings of what I believe and what I want. You have been quite inventive there.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

I wonder how did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, Ulysses Grant, William Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt all miss this? I wonder why when the fourteenth amendment was ramrodded onto the states they didn't immediately begin same sex marriage. I wonder why I see no mention of marriage whatsoever in the debates regarding the 14th amendment. I think I know the answer. It was invented in the 21st century, promulgated by amoral celebrities and enforced by raw power of those seeking special interest votes.

Because back in the days of the men you listed, homosexuals were shunned, if not killed. We have moved beyond that. Just because someone is attracted to the same gender does not make them subhuman.

Homosexuals are still shunned. But it was always illegal to kill anyone. Even homosexuals. Another lie.

Did I say it was ever legal to kill a homosexual? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Then what did we move past do tell?

Did we move past black men being lynched for looking at a white woman? Was it ever legal (for lynching free black men)?

It is the same with murdering gays.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

 

[DOTR]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.

 

[DOTR]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.

I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home. Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts because they meet those qualifications, and to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (see Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

 

[DOTR]

Let's review. I am an abomination, but not for anything I have actually said. But for things you CLAIM I believe or want. But you have no evidence.

I am a hypocrite, but you cannot site an example.

I am a liar, but you cannot point to a single lie I have told.


Interesting debate style you have.

Certainly I can. You lie in your refusal to admit that western values disgust you. That your goal is the elimination of legal marriage though yes you have basically admitted to that since you first lied about it. That you first decided 14 men couldn't get married...now have decided they can...and will shout from the rooftop that 14 men marrying was the original goal of the constitution if and when the Supreme Court reaches that level of depravity.
What it boils down to, what you lie about, is that this is about destroying legal marriage. Period.

 

[DOTR]

Same-sex marriage rights created by the Supreme Court court affects everyone. When the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are re-defined to appease the ideological play-thing of the day, we have lost the purpose of a written constitutions and the rule of law. We are Putin's Russia.

Oh please. Spare me that sort of nonsense. "play-thing of the day"?? How about a chunk of the population? How about US citizens who work, pay taxes, serve in the military and deserve the same rights and privileges every other citizen enjoys?

The rule of law is to protect ALL citizens. Not just the ones who act like you think they should act. Hell, how many redneck white trash couples have gone to the courthouse after knowing each other only a few weeks? How many people serving time in prison get to marry? And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?

No.

it is more than yucky. It is a revolting abomination. Gays were banned from the miltary by the way until the corrupt clinton/obama attack. But thats an aside.
Its another lie from you about the privacy of their homes. Which nobody interfered with. What they, and all anti christians, want is for society to give them a license for their abomination. They want government in their bedroom so bad they couldn't shut up about it until they got it.
So this is yet another example of either 1 willful misdirection or 2 ignorance. Which is it?

"revolting abomination" = "really, really yucky"

Yes, they WERE interfered with. The anti-sodomy laws were specifically used against gays. Law enforcement didn't care if straight couples committed acts of sodomy, just gays.

What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be free from harassment about their sexual orientation. What they wanted, and mostly got, was to be treated equally by the gov't. They pay the same taxes you do, higher for years since they couldn't marry. But they could be fired and refused service or benefits because of their sexual orientation.

To answer your question, it is neither willful misdirection nor ignorance.

It appears it was willful misdirection. Marriage is NOT the privacy of your own home.

I never said marriage was in the privacy of their home. Please use what I actually say instead of what you want me to say.

"And yet you claim, because they are the same gender, that law-abiding couples who function as valued members of society are excluded because you think what they do in the privacy of their home is yucky?"

If you were straying from the topic of marriage then lets ignore it. But I dont think so. You responded to a post about "same sex marriage rights". Incredible lack of concentration...or a weak attempt to claim gays pretending to marry is somehow tied up with "the privacy of their own home".

 

[DOTR]

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Orwell was right about statists and their abuse of language in the pursuit of power. It is a word which sprang into being to describe the legal status of men and women in relation to each other. Liberals have stripped the word of its meaning and then used the now useless word in their war on Americans.

"
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless....Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought..."

How in the hell does allowing same sex couples the same marital rigts a war on Americans?? It doesn't effect any American except those in the marriage.

Once again, why do you care?

Once again doesnt matter why I care. I care. it may because I flipped a coin.

Hatred without reason is ignorance.

Ignorance without reason is liberalism.

I'll let a liberal argue that. Since I am not a liberal...

You are as repulsive a liberal as I have ever seen.