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.
LOLOLYou explained that 2 + 2 = 5. What you just said is that they are being treated equally because they were being treated equally. Any dumbass can see they aren't being treated equally. One is against the law, and the other isn't, so how are they being treated equally? Let's see you wave your magic wand and turn black into white.Your idiocy is not a flaw in someone else's argument. It's already been explained to you repeatedly that polygamy and incest are being treated fairly under the law since everyone is treated equally.What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
It's no ones's fault but your own that you such a fucking moron, you simply can't grasp that; so you keep bringing it up time and time again.
I know, English is such a struggle for you.I am unable to untangle that pile of gobbledygook. There are all kinds of laws that are designed to benefit mothers because they're only career was raising children, like the fact that they collect their deceased husband's Social Security benefits. Why should Adam collect Steve's Social Security benefits if Steve dies? What's the social benefit of that?Same is true for all married couples who have no kids. That's why ALL married couples get the same tax advantages based on tax brackets and regardless if they have kids or not. Those who do have kids, may qualify for certain tax advantages for their kids; which are the same for everyone based on tax brackets, not marriage status.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Prior to the SC decision, no one could marry someone of the same sex. Everyone was treated equally. See how your dumbass logic works?LOLOLYou explained that 2 + 2 = 5. What you just said is that they are being treated equally because they were being treated equally. Any dumbass can see they aren't being treated equally. One is against the law, and the other isn't, so how are they being treated equally? Let's see you wave your magic wand and turn black into white.Your idiocy is not a flaw in someone else's argument. It's already been explained to you repeatedly that polygamy and incest are being treated fairly under the law since everyone is treated equally.What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
It's no ones's fault but your own that you such a fucking moron, you simply can't grasp that; so you keep bringing it up time and time again.
You're such a fucking moron.
No one can legally marry more than one. Everyone is treated equally.
No one can legally marry a close relative. Everyone is treated equally.
Prior to Obergefell, Adam could marry Eve but he couldn't marry Steve; where the only reason is because of Steve's gender. And the Constitution does not allow discrimination based on gender.
You fail again. That's your homophobic measure, not the Constitution's. Gays are protected by equality under the law. And the law can't discriminate based on gender. The law can't provide a marriage license to Adam to legally marry Eve, the person he loves; but deny another Adam to legally marry Steve, the person he loves -- for no reason other than Steve's gender.LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
Prior to the SC decision, no one could marry someone of the same sex. Everyone was treated equally. See how your dumbass logic works?Prior to the SC decision, no one could marry someone of the same sex. Everyone was treated equally. See how your dumbass logic works?LOLOLYou explained that 2 + 2 = 5. What you just said is that they are being treated equally because they were being treated equally. Any dumbass can see they aren't being treated equally. One is against the law, and the other isn't, so how are they being treated equally? Let's see you wave your magic wand and turn black into white.Your idiocy is not a flaw in someone else's argument. It's already been explained to you repeatedly that polygamy and incest are being treated fairly under the law since everyone is treated equally.What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
It's no ones's fault but your own that you such a fucking moron, you simply can't grasp that; so you keep bringing it up time and time again.
You're such a fucking moron.
No one can legally marry more than one. Everyone is treated equally.
No one can legally marry a close relative. Everyone is treated equally.
Prior to Obergefell, Adam could marry Eve but he couldn't marry Steve; where the only reason is because of Steve's gender. And the Constitution does not allow discrimination based on gender.
Actually, the Constitution does not say anything about discrimination based on gender. Many laws discriminate based on gender, like laws on which bathroom you are allowed to use. Although the queers are trying to do away with those laws as well. The law allows insurance companies to charge different rates for women than they charge for men.
Marriage laws never discriminated against gender. They discriminated against certain combinations of gender, and there's certain nothing in the Constitution that bars that.
You're trying to make 2 + 2 = 5, and only the gullible are buying it.
Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those advantages were first sought out by rich white dudes looking for trophy-wife deductions and they were made family - friendly by democratic women elected to congress between 1960 and 1984.
The time is over due to extend them to all two-person partnerships with proper documentation or remove them.
What about 3 person partnerships and brother-sister partnerships? Don't you want everyone to be treated equally?
Which states would have legal sibling marriage, progressive and blue like California or deep red-neck red like Alabama? 
LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
Your argument about why incestous or polygamous marriages should be illegal is the fact that they're illegal. You're begging the question.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those advantages were first sought out by rich white dudes looking for trophy-wife deductions and they were made family - friendly by democratic women elected to congress between 1960 and 1984.
The time is over due to extend them to all two-person partnerships with proper documentation or remove them.
What about 3 person partnerships and brother-sister partnerships? Don't you want everyone to be treated equally?
Are brothers marrying one of their sisters illegal in every state?
I suppose that if there one or two out there, then brother with brother and sister with sister marriage WOULD end up legal in those states!
How fucking progressive is that?!?
Recognizing three person partnerships of ANY sexual combination or orientation is not part of the discussion, because once you get three in a bed, you can form a corporation and get even more in government recognition.
When did you swear service to the Constitution? Where does the Constitution say unfairness is a "no-no?"LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
But it's not fucking fair. According to The Constitution that I swore service to, unfairness is a no-no.
Your argument about why incestous or polygamous marriages should be illegal is the fact that they're illegal. You're begging the question.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those advantages were first sought out by rich white dudes looking for trophy-wife deductions and they were made family - friendly by democratic women elected to congress between 1960 and 1984.
The time is over due to extend them to all two-person partnerships with proper documentation or remove them.
What about 3 person partnerships and brother-sister partnerships? Don't you want everyone to be treated equally?
Are brothers marrying one of their sisters illegal in every state?
I suppose that if there one or two out there, then brother with brother and sister with sister marriage WOULD end up legal in those states!
How fucking progressive is that?!?
Recognizing three person partnerships of ANY sexual combination or orientation is not part of the discussion, because once you get three in a bed, you can form a corporation and get even more in government recognition.
When did you swear service to the Constitution? Where does the Constitution say unfairness is a "no-no?"LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
But it's not fucking fair. According to The Constitution that I swore service to, unfairness is a no-no.
I don't think you're getting it.Your argument about why incestous or polygamous marriages should be illegal is the fact that they're illegal. You're begging the question.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those advantages were first sought out by rich white dudes looking for trophy-wife deductions and they were made family - friendly by democratic women elected to congress between 1960 and 1984.
The time is over due to extend them to all two-person partnerships with proper documentation or remove them.
What about 3 person partnerships and brother-sister partnerships? Don't you want everyone to be treated equally?
Are brothers marrying one of their sisters illegal in every state?
I suppose that if there one or two out there, then brother with brother and sister with sister marriage WOULD end up legal in those states!
How fucking progressive is that?!?
Recognizing three person partnerships of ANY sexual combination or orientation is not part of the discussion, because once you get three in a bed, you can form a corporation and get even more in government recognition.
Now you're getting it!!!
Kudos!
No it doesn't. The Constitution is about freedom, not fairness.When did you swear service to the Constitution? Where does the Constitution say unfairness is a "no-no?"LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
But it's not fucking fair. According to The Constitution that I swore service to, unfairness is a no-no.
2009
Specifically? Nowhere.
In context? Through out the entire document.
So when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?
Fucking moron....No it doesn't. The Constitution is about freedom, not fairness.When did you swear service to the Constitution? Where does the Constitution say unfairness is a "no-no?"LOL
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
But it's not fucking fair. According to The Constitution that I swore service to, unfairness is a no-no.
2009
Specifically? Nowhere.
In context? Through out the entire document.
No it doesn't. The Constitution is about freedom, not fairness.When did you swear service to the Constitution? Where does the Constitution say unfairness is a "no-no?"LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?
Figures Buttplug would consider such idiocy, a "winner."
Fucking moron.... for the sake of road safety, states are constitutionally allowed to require applicants be able to pass certain tests in order to qualify for a driver's license. Having to pass a written test and a driving test to prove one's competence treats everyone the same.
As does having to pass a vision test; where again, everyone is treated equally under the law.
There is no limit to your stupidity, is there, ya fucking moron?
Passing the test of having two people of the correct gender for marriage protects society from encouraging homosexuality.
But it's not fucking fair. According to The Constitution that I swore service to, unfairness is a no-no.
2009
Specifically? Nowhere.
In context? Through out the entire document.
LOLOLNo one, not even the great Obama, could drain the racism from the right.Which just shows how much a bubble Western Academia has become.
Those same academians have Ike and Reagan in the top ten
Yet you don't deny that Western Academia has become a bubble...
That's telling.
Obama had the perfect chance to greatly heal the racial divide, and instead did just about everything he could to worsen it.
He is a piece of shit.
Thanks for demonstrating how the left constantly works to keep the flames or racial division burning.
Spits a fucking racist.
It’s a title which fits you appropriately as was revealed in another thread not long ago. It cracks me up watching you fucking racists bitch about the the racial divide in this country when it’s fucking racists like you fanning the flames.LOLOLNo one, not even the great Obama, could drain the racism from the right.Those same academians have Ike and Reagan in the top ten
Yet you don't deny that Western Academia has become a bubble...
That's telling.
Obama had the perfect chance to greatly heal the racial divide, and instead did just about everything he could to worsen it.
He is a piece of shit.
Thanks for demonstrating how the left constantly works to keep the flames or racial division burning.
Spits a fucking racist.
Wow, nothing but spin and a personal slur.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.
But ,but there are good people there tooIt’s a title which fits you appropriately as was revealed in another thread not long ago. It cracks me up watching you fucking racists bitch about the the racial divide in this country when it’s fucking racists like you fanning the flames.LOLOLNo one, not even the great Obama, could drain the racism from the right.Yet you don't deny that Western Academia has become a bubble...
That's telling.
Obama had the perfect chance to greatly heal the racial divide, and instead did just about everything he could to worsen it.
He is a piece of shit.
Thanks for demonstrating how the left constantly works to keep the flames or racial division burning.
Spits a fucking racist.
Wow, nothing but spin and a personal slur.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.
And in line with the theme of this thread, like trump, you are a retard.
