"Equal Protection Under the Law" for Sex with Pubescent Preteens, Multiple Wives, Sex with Animals?

[jknowgood]

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

Exactly.

They think we don't see what is going on, but a left loon isn't awfully bright

Lol, I know and fat bastard thinks he is the smartest of them all. Lol, he represents them perfectly.

 

[Freewill]

The criterium is consent. Children and animals cannot consent. Polygamy amongst adults, however, is a different story.

Can't consent? Who says so? Why are you pushing outdated social construct upon a brave new world?

Who says consent is out-dated? It's the basis of our government. The majority of Americans are OK with SSM, but people like you want to force your morals on them. It's rather hypocritical of you to talk about consent.

Isn't that interesting, you want to force your morals on the majority of Americans and you lecture just the opposite. Besides I didn't post a word about forcing anything on anyone I merely made the social observation that words have no meaning. Age of consent is the basis for our government, that is the sum total of your argument. Really? I don't know who might pay you to post because they should hire me I could make a more coherent argument for either side. Like, if I were you, I would have said that the SCOTUS ruling did not change the age of consent for any marriage, see that would have made sense. Our government used to be based on personal freedom not forced compliance. Which is something else you could have argued that by allowing gays to marriage is the opposite of forced compliance, it is freedom for them. But like the SCOTUS you had to twist things into something that isn't true and try and make it the new truth.

 

[Freewill]

There's no way to stop the legal approval for any kind of perversion. The arguments for legalization are the same for all of them as they are for same sex marriage.

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

Thanks, all we needed was a liberal to show up to tell us what to think.

 

[Pogo]

I'm a big fan of the Founding Fathers

Source for this quote?

Nope, didn't think so.


"Facts --- who needs 'em" --- Jesus

 

[jknowgood]

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

If it does the same thing, why can't it be called the same thing. Different names would just give future legislators the opportunity to create different rules; then it wouldn't be the same thing.

Because marriage has always been defined as being between a man and woman under God. Now it means whatever you want it to.

 

[mdk]

There's no way to stop the legal approval for any kind of perversion. The arguments for legalization are the same for all of them as they are for same sex marriage.

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There's no way to stop the legal approval for any kind of perversion. The arguments for legalization are the same for all of them as they are for same sex marriage.

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

 

[Wildman]

"equal protection under the law."

how about equal protection under the law for those who reject qweer activities and desires.., like cake baking.

if i were to bake a qweer cake all those qweers would spend a week on the shitter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

If you accept same sex civil unions then you have accepted same sex marriage. You no longer have an argument against it.

 

[Freewill]

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

That.

And I would say that even if there were bitchin, if the laws were changed as they should have been changed, and were being changed slowly. Then at least the majority would have had some say in what happened, not just 5 old men and women making law.

 

[Hossfly]

Your problem is that you apparently do not understand the English language. When a phrase says "established by the state." It obviously means established by the federal government because the new reality is there is no difference. Besides "established by the state" does not meet the intent of 6 old men and women so simple words clearly written no longer mean anything.

That is how the same old men and women can say that a man and woman is equal to a man and man or woman and woman. So state laws that mention man and woman don't really mean man and woman they mean person and person. See, easy now all that needs done is call Webster to get the definition changed. The words man and woman can now be interchanged except when it comes to affirmative action issues. Well there really is no need to to change the definition because we always have liberals around to tell us what they mean and men and women are exactly the same in case we should forget. And who knows the definition may later need redefined in accordance with the intent of the old men and women so why bother?

Time you got on board with this brave new world. I would say you need to read a book but without a liberal there to translate the true meaning of words your time would obviously be wasted.

I can't imagine the turmoil that the new world has caused English classes. English was hard enough now we need to know the intent of the person who wrote the words, even if the stated their intent, so we can understand the meaning of words. I guess just like the rule i before e the new rule is that words mean anything that the SCOTUS say they mean. Don't worry if you are confused there soon will be someone from the state to tell you what to think. So buck you you mycologist, racist, homophobic, anti-immigration whiner. (the meaning of those words are subject to interpretation depending on if they upset a chosen minority)

Well, Bubba Clinton knew what the meaning of is, is, and anything a Clinton utters is pure Gospel, by George.

 

[jknowgood]

There's no way to stop the legal approval for any kind of perversion. The arguments for legalization are the same for all of them as they are for same sex marriage.

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I've always supported civil unions. I thought they deserved the government perks of marriage. Even though they could legally do so through a will and testament.

 

[mdk]

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

The second states started offering civil unions, they were banned and so was their recognition. Like I said, it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only become fashionable when they realized they had lost the marriage debate.

 

[jknowgood]

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

If you accept same sex civil unions then you have accepted same sex marriage. You no longer have an argument against it.

Marriage means nothing now, thanks. If I ever marry again it will be between me, my wife, and my pastor. No government in it at all. Queers will never be able to truly be married under God, no matter how hard you try.

 

[mdk]

Damn stop using words that have no meaning, there is nothing perverse.

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I've always supported civil unions. I thought they deserved the government perks of marriage. Even though they could legally do so through a will and testament.

I had didn't have a problem with civil unions but several states did which is why they banned them entirely. If they allowed them this whole debate could have ended 12 years ago.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I've always supported civil unions. I thought they deserved the government perks of marriage. Even though they could legally do so through a will and testament.

I had didn't have a problem with civil unions but several states did which is why they banned them entirely. If they allowed them this whole debate could have ended 12 years ago.

I disagree, this entire thing is a roundabout way to get at the churches. The moment SCOTUS ok'd pretend marriage the calls for the end of tax exemption began.

 

[Hossfly]

Twisting the issue like you do is perverse.

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

The second states started offering civil unions, they were banned and so was their recognition in many states. Like I said, it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only become fashionable when they realized they had lost the marriage debate.

What will the married "couples" do when the Lord casts his vote? There ain't no place to hide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I know many "social cons" and I've never heard any of them say they disagreed with civil unions

If you accept same sex civil unions then you have accepted same sex marriage. You no longer have an argument against it.

Marriage means nothing now, thanks. If I ever marry again it will be between me, my wife, and my pastor. No government in it at all. Queers will never be able to truly be married under God, no matter how hard you try.

The Presbyterians and many other Christian churches are marrying gays in the eyes of God.

If God wants to prove he hates homosexuals and wants them treated as second class citizens,

he should speak now...or forever hold his tongue.

 

[mdk]

No, redefining marriage is perverse. When a civil union would've done the same thing.

But if they had settled for civil unions they couldn't go after the churches.

The social cons across the nation wouldn't allow civil unions b/c it was too close to marriage for their liking. Civil unions only became popular with them when they started losing the marriage debate.

I've always supported civil unions. I thought they deserved the government perks of marriage. Even though they could legally do so through a will and testament.

I had didn't have a problem with civil unions but several states did which is why they banned them entirely. If they allowed them this whole debate could have ended 12 years ago.

I disagree, this entire thing is a roundabout way to get at the churches. The moment SCOTUS ok'd pretend marriage the calls for the end of tax exemption began.

Folks have been calling for that nonsense for decades now. I am sure some assholes will try but they will fail.

 

[konradv]

What will the married "couples" do when the Lord casts his vote? There ain't no place to hide.

That's between them and the Lord. You don't have a say.