paperview
Life is Good
Loving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
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.
See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Romney would make the spouses cut off their hair....or he'd do it forcibly himself.
If your Messiah® is so wonderful, why do you rely on slander and lies?
Gays have an absolute right to live their lives however they see fit. They just don't have the right to make everyone else accept it.
Huh?None. The legal institution of marriage is a privilege granted by the laws of the state, not a right.
Well that runs counter to the core argument that it's all about protecting the sanctity of marriage. LOL
According to you, in order to argue that it is not a religious freedom issue, it's a "legal institution" not a religious one. So how does one pass legal institutions that discriminate against some by denying the the freedom or equal protection under the law to have the same consideration as other citizens? How is that not unconstitutional?
I thought the right was all about freedom and yet here they are limiting freedom.
Amazing isin't it?
It isn't "all about protecting the sanctity of marriage." Where did you get that strawman?
Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else in this country. What they want are extra rights. And they can't have them. Go whine.
Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
Please see post 57.Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
See how that works?
No, what I stated was fact.So even though you failed to prove your own opinions as fact...No opinion - just fact. If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.
If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument
You -again- fail to comprehend what I wrote.Reading comprehension fail.
I said:
Show where any of the examples you provided are rights that can be taken away by repealing the legislation that created them.
Yeah I was wondering why you phrased it that way. Again, where are you getting this bs from? Who is talking about taking away the right of marriage through repealing of a law but you?? Your spin is just a lame attempt to avoid the fact that supreme court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.
Until you develop the skill to do so, and the willingness to honestly, effectively and accurately apply that skill, there's no need for me to further consider your responses.
See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
No, what I stated was fact.So even though you failed to prove your own opinions as fact...No opinion - just fact. If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.
If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument
You can't have it both ways, Dem's.
First they want religion out of government, then they want chaplains (religious ceremony) to marry Gay's on the bases.
See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
Please see post 57.Hey, I happen to disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, but that doesn't make my opinion fact.See post 51, et al
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
See how that works?
See how that works?
Demonstrating a ruling unsound is not the same as simply disagreeing with it.
So, I ask again:
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
No, what I stated was fact.
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.
If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument
This is abject ignorace, or an outright lie.No, what I stated was fact.So even though you failed to prove your own opinions as fact...
Facts:
-Marriage as a legal institution exists because the state passed legislation to create it.
-States do not/cannot grant rights.
-Marriage as a legal institution can be eliminated by repealing the laws that created it.
-Rights cannot be eliminated by repealing legislation
Thus:
Marriage is not a right, but a priviliege granted by the state.
If you disagree, please feel free to refute my argument
wrong... it is only the state that can confer and protect rights. your "rights" do not exist absent state sanction.
Another lie, as my "opinion" was clearly substantiated, and proves that the statement is unsound.um... because it isn't.See post 51, et alLoving vs. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
Why does it not bother you that the court's stance is demonstrably unsound?
and no offense, but i'll go with the wisdom of that court over your unsubstantiated opinion.
Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights
Regressive GOP Tries to Thwart Gay Rights
I fully concur that being a homosexual is a constitutionally protected acivity.
What I disagree with is the double standard.
You have no problem when the government thwarts my, out of many, property and self defense rights.
Why?
.