Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

[bodecea]

Both concessions are duly noted.

Come back when either of you have a intelligent argument to make.

It's even funnier that you think anyone here has conceded to you.

Oh but they have and that includes you. All you have is personal attacks and insults, you have no intelligent argument to make.

Riiight...... You're that person who keeps referring to being smart and intelligent and clever in order to convince yourself. And only yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's even funnier that you think anyone here has conceded to you.

Oh but they have and that includes you. All you have is personal attacks and insults, you have no intelligent argument to make.

Riiight...... You're that person who keeps referring to being smart and intelligent and clever in order to convince yourself. And only yourself.

Fact is you convinced me a long time ago that you're incapable of intelligent debate. Why you insist on proving it time after time is beyond me. But I guess when a person can't even figure out how the whole procreation thing is supposed to work, it shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Ravi]

tha malcontent

Banned
Member #18755

 

[Carol]

Yes, it's true. You always pos rep me because I'm always right.

I do it because the Negativity that Defines your Existence makes me kinda Sad...

So I try to Cheer ya up, Kid!...



peace...

The sad thing is, Ravi honestly believes she's always right, which is of course the ultimate proof of ignorance.

Oh really, if Ravi is not right, where is your better reasoning? Attacking a person, rather than providing us with a better argument, should be beneath anyone in a form that is about sharing information. I don't think attacking others, instead of providing a better arugment is, how to get rep points and thank you's..

On the subject about Homosexual marriages, I will be 64 next month, and I would like to have a committed relationship. Pactically speaking there are many more available women than men at my age, so having a committed relationship with another women is just a practical choice, but for reasons I do not understand I am not moved to that make choice. I am hung on the idea of being committed only to a man. Why? That iis not rational.

We stand to save millions of tax dollors if older women get married to each other and care for each other. Then the state and mdeicare would not have the burdern of providing care for these people. In the past older people could expect help from their sons, daughters and grandchildren, but is this not so for many of us. Perhaps we should update our attitudes and behaviors to deal with our reality of long lived people? May be we should be more rational about these things?

 

[bodecea]

Oh but they have and that includes you. All you have is personal attacks and insults, you have no intelligent argument to make.

Riiight...... You're that person who keeps referring to being smart and intelligent and clever in order to convince yourself. And only yourself.

Fact is you convinced me a long time ago that you're incapable of intelligent debate. Why you insist on proving it time after time is beyond me. But I guess when a person can't even figure out how the whole procreation thing is supposed to work, it shouldn't be a surprise.

There you go again...trying very hard to convince yourself. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

 

[bodecea]

tha malcontent

Banned
Member #18755

The Mullet has left the building.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Riiight...... You're that person who keeps referring to being smart and intelligent and clever in order to convince yourself. And only yourself.

Fact is you convinced me a long time ago that you're incapable of intelligent debate. Why you insist on proving it time after time is beyond me. But I guess when a person can't even figure out how the whole procreation thing is supposed to work, it shouldn't be a surprise.

There you go again...trying very hard to convince yourself. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

What part of "you convinced me a long time ago" did you not understand? Oh that's right, you're simply proving once again that you lack intelligence.

 

[bodecea]

Fact is you convinced me a long time ago that you're incapable of intelligent debate. Why you insist on proving it time after time is beyond me. But I guess when a person can't even figure out how the whole procreation thing is supposed to work, it shouldn't be a surprise.

There you go again...trying very hard to convince yourself. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

What part of "you convinced me a long time ago" did you not understand? Oh that's right, you're simply proving once again that you lack intelligence.

You keep saying it over and over. If you really believed it....well, it's quite obvious you are trying very hard to convince yourself.....like all those songs trying to convince Texans that they live in Heaven on Earth. How incredibly stupid is THAT?!?!?!?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There you go again...trying very hard to convince yourself. Doesn't seem to be working, does it?

What part of "you convinced me a long time ago" did you not understand? Oh that's right, you're simply proving once again that you lack intelligence.

You keep saying it over and over. If you really believed it....well, it's quite obvious you are trying very hard to convince yourself.....like all those songs trying to convince Texans that they live in Heaven on Earth. How incredibly stupid is THAT?!?!?!?

Grasping at straws and creating straw men that's all you got. I pity the likes of you.

 

[bodecea]

What part of "you convinced me a long time ago" did you not understand? Oh that's right, you're simply proving once again that you lack intelligence.

You keep saying it over and over. If you really believed it....well, it's quite obvious you are trying very hard to convince yourself.....like all those songs trying to convince Texans that they live in Heaven on Earth. How incredibly stupid is THAT?!?!?!?

Grasping at straws and creating straw men that's all you got. I pity the likes of you.

Tell us how smart you are again.

 

[ConHog]

tha malcontent

Banned
Member #18755

#3

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ack-into-the-building-thread.html#post2606854

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago...

del almost did it... You posted the above, and as deldo's is Job in Life, he tried to Shit all over what he could not deal with in the Hopes that Playing with his own Fecal would Distract from the Substance you Posted...

Not today.



peace...

and Lonestar was thanking thamalcontent for this post?

 

[bodecea]

More than a century ago...

del almost did it... You posted the above, and as deldo's is Job in Life, he tried to Shit all over what he could not deal with in the Hopes that Playing with his own Fecal would Distract from the Substance you Posted...

Not today.



peace...

and Lonestar was thanking thamalcontent for this post?

Yes, because he's so clever.

 

[CountofTuscany]

Gay marriage should not be an issue. Marriage is not owned by any religious group. It occurs across all demnomiations, including agnostics and athiests. It is not limited to religious ceremony. Public, Justice of the Peace, Ship Captains, Las Vegas tourist attractions have been performing legal, non denominational ceremonies for years.

 

[George Costanza]

This is a long thread, and I don't have time to go back over all of it to see if anyone has put this up previously, but the concluding paragraph of the Loving case, cited in the OP, seems to answer the question asked in the thread title:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

True, the basis for criminalizing (or not allowing) marriage in the Loving case was race, rather than sexual preference. But I do not see a distinction. The Loving decision could just as easily have contained this addition to the language already there: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations or considerations of sexual preference."