Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."General welfare. That means that citizens, including children, eat. And it makes no difference either way as I am required to pay for things I don't like or use and so are you. It's part of your birthright, like freedom of speech and religion. That ain't free.It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.
No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.
.
Bombs are part of common defense, show me the constitutional mandate for me to subsidize other people kids. I can show you where Madison says it's not there.
.
General welfare is a spending category, not a stand alone power, if it were there would be no need to specify the items congress could spend on to provide for it. The same applies to common defense.
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."General welfare. That means that citizens, including children, eat. And it makes no difference either way as I am required to pay for things I don't like or use and so are you. It's part of your birthright, like freedom of speech and religion. That ain't free.It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.
.
Bombs are part of common defense, show me the constitutional mandate for me to subsidize other people kids. I can show you where Madison says it's not there.
.
General welfare is a spending category, not a stand alone power, if it were there would be no need to specify the items congress could spend on to provide for it. The same applies to common defense.
.
That would include not letting children starve.
Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.
And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.
>>>>
Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil union is between two consenting adults up until that line gets pushed past age or species borders. Someone will always try to push that line.
Here. Point out race?But race is accounted for specifically in the 14th Amendment. Can you quote from the Constitution were "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" are provided for as a class with special protections?And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.
>>>>
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
But race is accounted for specifically in the 14th Amendment.And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.
>>>>
Marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil union is between two consenting adults up until that line gets pushed past age or species borders. Someone will always try to push that line.
Marriage is between two consenting adults. A civil union was a construct that gay couples at one time hoped to be able to use since they were denied marriage, but the opponents of gay marriage, passed laws to refuse recognition of civil unions too.
Which is fine- because now we have legal marriage in all 50 states for couples- regardless of gender or color.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil union is between two consenting adults up until that line gets pushed past age or species borders. Someone will always try to push that line.
Marriage is between two consenting adults. A civil union was a construct that gay couples at one time hoped to be able to use since they were denied marriage, but the opponents of gay marriage, passed laws to refuse recognition of civil unions too.
Which is fine- because now we have legal marriage in all 50 states for couples- regardless of gender or color.
Marriage is a religious institution, the state has no standing in those matters. Oh they can say it does, but that means nothing.
My sister in law just got married in a civil ceremony. Guess what- that wedding has legal standing. If they have a religious marriage later- that marriage will have standing in their church- but they are already legally married.
You can say they aren't- but that and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.
And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.
>>>>
Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.
Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?
Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?
Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.
And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.
>>>>
Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.
Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?
Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?
BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.
My sister in law just got married in a civil ceremony. Guess what- that wedding has legal standing. If they have a religious marriage later- that marriage will have standing in their church- but they are already legally married.
You can say they aren't- but that and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Gee you said it yourself, she had a civil service.
The lies you tell yourself to promote an agenda.
Like I said, NOBODY understands marriage.Then anyone could marry anything...
Like I said, NOBODY understands marriage.t.Then anyone could marry anything...
Everybody is stupid but me?Like I said- if you believe that nobody but you understand marriage- you should probably be suspicious of why you are the only one.
How did you know that?Like I said, NOBODY understands marriage.Then anyone could marry anything...
It's a contract. Offer, acceptance, and consideration. A contract requires acceptance or an agreement to be bound. A child, dog, or tree has no legal capacity to consent to such an agreement.
I think Sil is jealous that a gay man can find a husband and she can't.
Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities.
