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.
Lol, and here we get the homos strawman again.
Your misuse of the term strongly suggests you have no idea what a strawman is.
.
Nope, using it as it is meant to be. We are discussing gay marriage you continue to bring up interacial marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with making marriage mean a union between two deviants of the same gender. That is your strawman son. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and are probably even dumber than I think you are, and that's saying something.
Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.
Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.
If you believe that then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of law and precedence. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin & Turner v Safley all set the precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that you can't keep people from a fundamental right just because you don't like them.
Now, do you recall a little ruling known as Lawrence v Texas? Do you know why Scalia got his big fat underwear in a wad over that ruling? Because it set a precedent as well.
Your misuse of the term strongly suggests you have no idea what a strawman is.
.
Nope, using it as it is meant to be. We are discussing gay marriage you continue to bring up interacial marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with making marriage mean a union between two deviants of the same gender. That is your strawman son. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and are probably even dumber than I think you are, and that's saying something.
I guarantee you that Loving v Virginia will be used as one of the legal precedents to legalizing gay marriage.
As for the rest, kid, you have had your ass handed to you so many times in this topic that if you have not yet realized it by this point, then I think we all know who the dumbshit is.
.
Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.
Soo... You are saying that only 2% of the population are in favor of gay marriage?
You are new here Neocon, when making such grand statements you must back them up with some facts.
Got any facts to support that slimey lemon you just laid?
I have one that is contrary!
Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.
If you believe that then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of law and precedence. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin & Turner v Safley all set the precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that you can't keep people from a fundamental right just because you don't like them.
Now, do you recall a little ruling known as Lawrence v Texas? Do you know why Scalia got his big fat underwear in a wad over that ruling? Because it set a precedent as well.
Though marriage may be a right, redifining what marriage means is not.
Nope, using it as it is meant to be. We are discussing gay marriage you continue to bring up interacial marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with making marriage mean a union between two deviants of the same gender. That is your strawman son. You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and are probably even dumber than I think you are, and that's saying something.
I guarantee you that Loving v Virginia will be used as one of the legal precedents to legalizing gay marriage.
As for the rest, kid, you have had your ass handed to you so many times in this topic that if you have not yet realized it by this point, then I think we all know who the dumbshit is.
.
Nobody has handed me my ass on this topic. We, right thinking, decent, God fearing Americans, come at this from a different direction than you Godless sodomites, dykes and liberal scum. We come at it from a POV that is dictated by having certain moral standards, you guys come at from a POV that recognizes no morality at all. The only dumbshits here are the immoral bastards that think their deviancies and perversions make them anything other than Godless scum running full speed towards their destruction and judgement with a good chance of making a pit stop on the HIV/Aids lists. You're a bunch of immoral, diseased deviants who are such dumbshits you don't even know what the penis you were born with is for. I'm pretty much done with this thread as the filth you people represent sickens me. I'll be voting against gay marriage in Md this Nov and hope my neighbors will also, and if it does pass, I for one will still not recognize any union between two members of the same sex as anything other than filth and perversion. The best thing about the coming out of you guys is that the HIV rate among gay men has skyrocketed AGAIN. Hopefully this time you perverts will keep it among yourselves and not infect decent people with your disease.
Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.
Soo... You are saying that only 2% of the population are in favor of gay marriage?
You are new here Neocon, when making such grand statements you must back them up with some facts.
Got any facts to support that slimey lemon you just laid?
I have one that is contrary!
No, I'm saying approx 2% of the population is homosexual. As for proof, look up the statistics yourslef.
Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.
If you believe that then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of law and precedence. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin & Turner v Safley all set the precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that you can't keep people from a fundamental right just because you don't like them.
Now, do you recall a little ruling known as Lawrence v Texas? Do you know why Scalia got his big fat underwear in a wad over that ruling? Because it set a precedent as well.
Though marriage may be a right, redifining what marriage means is not.
No one has sex in the military, why would two men or women throw away their careers for a quick one? DADT didnt make sense so it was repealed, repealing DADT isnt making sex legal in any shape or form.So you think guys should be drilling each other in the military? WTF is wrong with you people.
WTF makes you think gay men will be having sex with each other in the military? Wouldn't they have done it before, when they kept their sexuality a secret?
Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with redifining marraige to include two members of ther same gender, therefore it is irelevent to this discussion.
If you believe that then you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of law and precedence. Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin & Turner v Safley all set the precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that you can't keep people from a fundamental right just because you don't like them.
Now, do you recall a little ruling known as Lawrence v Texas? Do you know why Scalia got his big fat underwear in a wad over that ruling? Because it set a precedent as well.
Though marriage may be a right, redifining what marriage means is not.
Our form of govt is to send people who represent our points of view to Washington to express our points of view by writing law. We the People have spoken, in state after state after state, and we have said there is no such thing as gay marriage and we should not change the definition of the word just to appease less than 2% of our population that thinks otherwise. Your "civil" liberties do not include the right to redifine words to filt your perverse lifestyle choices.
Soo... You are saying that only 2% of the population are in favor of gay marriage?
You are new here Neocon, when making such grand statements you must back them up with some facts.
Got any facts to support that slimey lemon you just laid?
I have one that is contrary!
No, I'm saying approx 2% of the population is homosexual. As for proof, look up the statistics yourslef.
Soo... You are saying that only 2% of the population are in favor of gay marriage?
You are new here Neocon, when making such grand statements you must back them up with some facts.
Got any facts to support that slimey lemon you just laid?
I have one that is contrary!
No, I'm saying approx 2% of the population is homosexual. As for proof, look up the statistics yourslef.
But, it is not to "appease" just those people.
As you can see in the link I supplied, a MAJORITY of Americans want the LGBT community to have the same rights as the rest of us. You view, in the forum of democracy, is now invalid.
And as far as 2% of the population being homosexual... That stat is very old, it was from a Family Research study done in the year 2000. Newer estimates are around 22% of the population (2005).
Considering the stigma that is attached through society to being gay. I would imagine that number may be even higher, as a lot of people are ashamed of being gay.. Like Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus.
