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

MARRIAGE is fundamental to our existence. The question then becomes... when can government discriminate with regard to marriage?

It seems pretty clear that the answer is, marriage is between consenting adults unless there is a really really good reason for government regulation. So, perhaps the government has a good reason for intervening in cases of sanguinity, but beyond that, it does seem it should keep hands off.

Where are all the libertarians and Goldwater republicans on this issue?

on the sidelines, snickering at the alleged *conservatives* who can't seem to stay the fuck out of other peoples' bedrooms and lives.

thanks for asking :)

When it came out of the bedroom and demanded an equality that doesn't exist it became everyones issue...

:)

peace...

uh huh. keep telling yourself that. i'm sure that you're stupid enough to believe it, too.
 
only to extraordinarily stoooopid people. :eusa_shhh:

Ah... Didn't have anything of substance to counter with eh?...

Welcome back deldo. :rofl:

:)

peace...

i stopped trying to teach pigs to whistle a long time ago, porky.

it's clear that you've never read loving and that you, as usual, just make up shit. have a nice day.




:lol: They say Jesus did mention something about not casting your pearls to the swine.
 
Last edited:
Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

No one gives a shit if homos get married. Which is why most people don't want to recognize and legitimize their so-called marriages.

Interesting example of an oxymoron.
 
i stopped trying to teach pigs to whistle a long time ago, porky.

it's clear that you've never read loving and that you, as usual, just make up shit. have a nice day.

Still nothing eh?... :rofl:

:)

peace...

did i s-s-s-s-s-stutter, porky?

Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy... :rofl:

:)

peace...
 
Still nothing eh?... :rofl:

:)

peace...

did i s-s-s-s-s-stutter, porky?

Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy... :rofl:

:)

peace...

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.
 
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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.


Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] is what federally defined marriage in 1996, and it still stands to be challenged.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Civilizations provide the social order than makes every other aspect of life possible, and some things, such as cannibolism, not possible without severe punishment.
Therefore, marragie is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.", because marriage gives us social order. It most certianly does address our individual survival issues, being a legal contract that regulates the relationship and shared property.

From ealiest times, and around the world, all people have made agreements about marriage and family. The agreements have not been the same everywhere, nor throughout history. Historically we have known a time when Land Lords could give or deny people the right to marry. States in the United States, have had different laws regarding marriage, and have prevented marriages for various reasons, usch as mental retardation, or differences in skin color, or social status (slaves were not free to marry without permission).

My point is, marriage is a civil matter and it is humans who make the agreements and laws. In a democracy, no religion has the right to dictate the laws, not the Jews, the Christians, the Moslems, Hindus, or Buddhaist. Therefore, if the only objection to homosexual marriages is something said in a holy book, that is not enough to prevent the marriages. We have separation of church and state, and our laws are based on reason, not religion.
 
Last edited:
did i s-s-s-s-s-stutter, porky?

Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy... :rofl:

:)

peace...

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...

:)

peace...
 
Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy... :rofl:

:)

peace...

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...

:)

peace...


Slum and cheat?
 
Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy... :rofl:

:)

peace...

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...

:)

peace...

fail

again
 
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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.


Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] is what federally defined marriage in 1996, and it still stands to be challenged.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks to the Yes on H8 people, it will be.
 
arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...

:)

peace...

fail

again

Weak... even for you, fat fuck... :rofl:

:)

peace...
 
only to extraordinarily stoooopid people. :eusa_shhh:

Ah... Didn't have anything of substance to counter with eh?...

Welcome back deldo. :rofl:

:)

peace...

i stopped trying to teach pigs to whistle a long time ago, porky.

it's clear that you've never read loving and that you, as usual, just make up shit. have a nice day.

Someone had Loving very clearly shown to him a long time ago....about the time he bugged out.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top