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

[Stephanie]

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.

agree. my guy and I aren't married and we can get most of the perks married folks do. when he had Open heart surgery, we just signed a paper stating I'm his person to go to. If they have a living will and insurance, etc. Any person can be protected

 

[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 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.

He didn't have a photo id so he wasn't allowed to vote.

 

[Hossfly]

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.

God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.

 

[Freewill]

Oh gosh the liberal left now has religion,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Ignorant demagoguery, this fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Equal protection under the law refers to laws citizens are eligible to participate in, where government seeks to deny citizens participation in a law absent a compelling governmental reason.

None of the persons the OP names are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, consequently there is no violation of equal protection under the law.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Funny thing is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Like this one from my states (Virginia):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
​

The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.


I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.


>>>>

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Funny think is that over a decade ago it was social conservatives (which included Democrats and Republicans if talking about a political party) that pushed state constitutional amendments that banned both Civil Marriage and Civil Unions.

Like this one from my states (Virginia):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
​

The of course there was Referendum 71 an attempt to repeal Washington States Civil Union law which granted all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges (at the State level, Civil Unions did not transfer across state lines nor were they recognized by the federal government) of Civil Marriage. Social Conservatives were upset that it made Civil Unions to much like Civil Marriage and therefore was unacceptable.


I'm in my 50's and was around back then. Please to try to re-write history and imply that social conservatives pushed for Civil Unions for gays and it was gays that rejected them.


>>>>

You figure out the difference between Covenants and Testaments yet? That would be on Google also

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.

Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.

That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.

 

[Hossfly]

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.

God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.

That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.

Well, heathen, I believe it so it must be true.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

agree. my guy and I aren't married and we can get most of the perks married folks do. when he had Open heart surgery, we just signed a paper stating I'm his person to go to. If they have a living will and insurance, etc. Any person can be protected

Get married and you don't even have to do that much, it's automatic. At the moment you can be forced to testify against each other, something spouses cannot be required to do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm a big fan of the Founding Fathers

Source for this quote?

Nope, didn't think so.


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

I think she has you on "pretend" ignore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.

That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.

Well, heathen, I believe it so it must be true.

Most people believe total bullshit. I'll just add you to the list, and I am agnostic BTW, the only truly rational position.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.

Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?

God is everyone's ruler, wether you like it or not. He created you and he has already decided when you will die. Not his fault you choose not to believe.

 

[Hossfly]

No such thing. When the fire starts raining down you'll be praying your ass off. Seen it many times.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

God speaks and acts in subtle ways. Not so you would notice it but what's a few floods. Fires. Natural disasters such as bird flu, AIDS, Ebola, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, global warming, drought.Then there's starvation, slavery, mass murders, Liberal Progressive nation destroyers. That's just a few. Keep up the good work.

That's human history, not God handing out spankings to naughty believers and unbelievers.

Since the United states has started turning on God, we have become a cesspool. Proof you should even see.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No matter how hard you try, queers will never be married in the eyes of God. Never.

Well, that would be up to God now wouldn't it? Do you speak for Him? And, since God has no standing in American laws, He matters not a damn in this case eh?

God is everyone's ruler, wether you like it or not. He created you and he has already decided when you will die. Not his fault you choose not to believe.

Man created God, not the other way around little friend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 you might know 'many' social conservatives is anecdotal and irrelevant.

Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference, 'civil unions' are just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment.

 

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

That you might know 'many' social conservatives is anecdotal and irrelevant.

Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference, 'civil unions' are just as un-Constitutional as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment.

I repeat, GFY