Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
PI does..
So I guess being a hateful lunatic is normal these days
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
Whoever Obama nominates is going to move the court to the right, since nobody will be as Liberal as Stevens.
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.
Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective
Well...
She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?
No. What this means is she knows it's not, but given the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to make it a right, she'll vote yes.
She a fucking fag lover and enabler, and since OWEbama nominated her, that kind of makes me wonder now if that story of the limo driver sucking him off in the back seat is true.
Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
Oh, BTW, Dora is TOTALLY an illegal immigrant.Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
PI does..
So I guess being a hateful lunatic is normal these days
Not EVERYBODY reproduces.Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.
Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?
The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.Pedophilia is criminal-assault.
The only assault Gay people are guilty of, is the arousal they (indirectly) inspire, within you folks who're afraid of them.
So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?
Not EVERYBODY reproduces.Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.
Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?
[. the appeal court isn't saying that gay marriage is not right because of tradition or popular opinion.
Being a good judge is being able to put your personal feelings aside and fairly interpret the law. To listen to argument which go against your beliefs and evaluate them based on logic and law is what we should be looking.
Ah, if this were only true. But it isn't. No one, not even a Supreme Court justice, is immune from their own personal feelings, beliefs, prejudices and biases. No one.
So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?You kiddin'??????
"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.
There are real ways in which there are population reduction methods. Homosexuality being "normalized" (normal is relative concept) is just barely a part of it.Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.
Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?
Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.
Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?
DiamondDave (05-11-2010), Wicked Jester (Yesterday)The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:
"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.
Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.
Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Using that reasoning, not only must you deny same-sex couples ...
not a contract, silly. a licensed marriage. clearly mutually exclusive. perhaps rather than criticizing its hyperbole, you can appreciate the implications of this argument: were marriage such an unqualified contract, can the same 9y/o get married? can brother and sister?Not to mention that the very concept of basing the right to enter into a legal contract [a contract that is already recognized as a standard form of contract] based on whether one can reproduce is unconstitutional and immoral from the outset.
if a judgment can't be made that the definition was motivated by hate, can the the effects stand alone?
Yes. Another precedent involving race was the Chinese Laundry Case [Yick Wo v. Hopkins] which that determined that law which is not discriminatory on its service can be unconstitutional if it is discriminatory in practice. It follows, then, that a law which is discretionary in practice is unconstitutional even if it was not so intended.
i put reduction of the issue of marriage licenses to some kind of contract issue on par with my suicide metaphor with regard to honesty... if we need to engage in judgment of argumentation over argument at all.To compare entering a legal contract of marriage to risking one's life by running into a freeway is dishonest at best and warrants no so serious consideration. You've lost standing and credibility with comment.
The only qualifications to enter into legal contract are
-to be of legal age to do so (or have the sponsorship of a guardian)
-to be of sound mind, understanding the nature of the contract and not being judged legally incompetent
i'm attempting to discuss this with the sort of care needed to conserve the effects of precedent - just like the court would so consider. that requires an assessment of slippery-slope implications for other qualifications to marriage licenses, or other licenses altogether.get denied a license because you dont put a male in the husband slot and a female in the wife spot on the application, you've filled out the application wrong,
Which takes us right back to the unconstitutional discrimination in recognizing legal contracts entered into by free and competent persons based on race, sex, national origin, etc.or don't qualify to apply, like a nine-year-old on a drivers license app.
You're comparing a 32-year-old woman entering into a contract with another 32-year-old woman to a nine-year-old child operating a deadly machine? I beleive the phrase is 'jumped the shark.
Twice now you have resulted to absurd non sequitur. I'm beginning to question whether you're capable of discussing this matter in a mature, intelligent, and honest manner.
Not EVERYBODY reproduces.Who gets to define "normal," anyways?
But that's for another thread...
It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.
Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?
So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?You kiddin'??????
"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.
ROFLMNAO...
Homosexuality is a natural reaction of the species to stress... It's nature's way of culling the herd... Next in line is mass murder and cannibalism... Ironically, studies show that it's the fags that are the first to be whacked and consumed.
Now with regard to the fear farce... We fear nature and with regard to queers, we're just thankful that our genetic material hasn't been selected for deletion... and we're pretty sure that it's a BAD IDEA to raise that status to 'PREFERRED'.