Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[JakeStarkey]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

The courts are not the arbiters of truth, Fakey.

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

 

[bripat9643]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

This is bripat's response when he cannot answer it logically. He ad homs. Smile, because it means you are doing very well.

No, that's my response whenever I'm arguing with someone who has proven he is immune to logic. Skylar will continue to repeat the same exploded fallacies until doomsday. He simply doesn't care what the truth is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

 

[bripat9643]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

The courts are not the arbiters of truth, Fakey.

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

This is bripat's response when he cannot answer it logically. He ad homs. Smile, because it means you are doing very well.

No, that's my response whenever I'm arguing with someone who has proven he is immune to logic. Skylar will continue to repeat the same exploded fallacies until doomsday. He simply doesn't care what the truth is.

Yes, that's your response when you fail. There is no such thing as 'bripat truth.' Show us where marriage equality is bad.

 

[bripat9643]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the courts are not the final arbiters of truth?

 

[Skylar]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Says you. And while you're certainly welcome to your personal opinions, your opinions aren't the basis of any court ruling.

And again, no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their 'failure' to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I can't think of a single reason. And apparently, in 44 of 46 instances, neither could the courts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Only to the weak headed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the courts are not the final arbiters of truth?

You are the ariber of nothing so your explanation means nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

This is bripat's response when he cannot answer it logically. He ad homs. Smile, because it means you are doing very well.

No, that's my response whenever I'm arguing with someone who has proven he is immune to logic. Skylar will continue to repeat the same exploded fallacies until doomsday. He simply doesn't care what the truth is.

Yes, that's your response when you fail. There is no such thing as 'bripat truth.' Show us where marriage equality is bad.

Here's the explanation for your posts:

 

[ChrisL]

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

The courts are not the arbiters of truth, Fakey.

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Why do you care why other people choose to be married or what they do in their bedrooms? How does this effect you?

 

[konradv]

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Marriage perversion occurs when a couple goes to Vegas to get married, then gets divorced a couple of weeks later. I'm surprised there isn't general laughter at the "until death do us part" part.

 

[Skylar]

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the courts are not the final arbiters of truth?

They are arbiters of the law and interpreters of the constitution. That you don't believe they rule in accordance with some 'objective truth' doesn't really matter. As you're not an arbiter of anything objective.

 

[bripat9643]

The courts are not the arbiters of truth, Fakey.

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Why do you care why other people choose to be married or what they do in their bedrooms? How does this effect you?

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about what they put on their 1040.

 

[konradv]

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about is what they put on their 1040.

Then why did you say, "The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term."

 

[ChrisL]

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Why do you care why other people choose to be married or what they do in their bedrooms? How does this effect you?

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about is what they put on their 1040.

They are not entitled to anything MORE than you and your wife would be entitled to. I'm not sure WHAT point you are trying to make here.

 

[ChrisL]

Silly comment. We are talking about Constitutional law not Christian "truth."

Where did I use the word "Christian?" I'm an atheist, Fakey. Truth is truth, regardless of what some judge rules.

No, it isn't. Where did you come up with that nonsense? There is no truth that marriage equality is bad.

The phrase "marriage equality" is a misnomer. Marriage perversion would be the more accurate term.

Why do you care why other people choose to be married or what they do in their bedrooms? How does this effect you?

For one thing, it entitles them to government benefits, which means my taxes will increase. They will get tax deductions and SS survivor benefits.

I don't give a damn what they do in their bedrooms. I care about is what they put on their 1040.

Basically, you think gay people should not be treated as equals. That is what you are saying? You think because they are gay, they don't deserve the benefits of marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Think that's a trend that will continue thru 2016? Or an expected mid-term shift?

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

Conservative estimates claim that there are at least 100 million terrorists. How many would it take to plan and conduct terrorist attacks in the US? A couple hundred? And how easy would it be to sneak them across the border? Then there's the fact of home grown terrorists that would be more than happy to help them out. We're sitting ducks. Do you have any idea how vulnerable our power grid is? There have already been a few attacks on them. Practice runs, maybe?

"Conservative estimates"? You mean you pulling crap out of your ass? There are an estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world- and you think that 5% of every Muslim man, woman and child is a terrorist?

Since when have Americans become such cowards?

And what the hell does your fear of terrorists have to do with this thread?

 

[Syriusly]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law.

Gays do have equal protection under the law- they are going to court to enforce that protection where they are being illegally discriminated against.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay. There's very little support for dismantling state recognized marriage in this country, nor the legal invalidation of every marriage certificate. Nor any plausible path toward its implementation.

And if you want an individual contract that the State doesn't get involved in.....you have it. State Free marriage is already on the table for anyone that wants it. For those who want it, there is state sanctioned and protected marriage.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course it sounds like a win-win to you? You're someone who wipes his ass on the Constitution and takes dick up your ass.

'Dicks up the ass', I leave to you. As for the constitution, the 14th amendment protects the rights of gays as much as any other American.

As it should.

True, but there is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Marriage is for people with the correct combination of biological equipment. Any claims to the contrary are pure sophistry.

Courts disagree with you, as they certainly should.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the courts are not the final arbiters of truth?

How many times do I have to tell you that what you think about it is meaningless.