Love "wins"

[Conservative65]

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Bingo! Ding, Ding, Ding....you finally caught on. It only took half a dozen posts explaining it to you. The criteria was not "non familial" as you wrongly claimed. It was one man and one woman of the same race. Then it became one man and one woman of any race. Currently is anyone with anyone because of an illegal and unconstitutional ruling.

So we're still waiting for an example from you wytchy were liberal's drew the line and refused to "progress" an issue any further. It's pretty sad that you can't come up with one example. Not even a small and silly one - much less one of substance.

Illegal ruling?

Yeah sweetie. The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers by the U.S. Constitution. Marriage is not one of those powers. Therefore they have no authority at all to rule on it.

Furthermore, only the legislative branch can create or alter law. The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch. Therefore they cannot create a law stating that all states must recognize gay marriage.

Isn't it sad that liberals need the basics of the U.S. Constitution and the role of government explained to them? You people are an embarrassment to this nation.

How about equal protection? Anyway, the law of the land disagrees with you

Do you support polygamous marriages? Brother/Sister? Mother/Son? Father/Daughter?

Tell us about that equal protection.

 

[Freewill]

Who cares. Really, though, how is this anyone's business?

It takes a villiage

 

[Seawytch]

Let me guess...you think Obama has "destroyed" the economy don't you?

Well my dear - we have a record national debt (over $19 trillion), a record number of people out of the labor force, and a record number of people on food stamps. Any objective, reasonable, and rational person would consider that catastrophic and a monumental failure.

We went from hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month to the longest period of private sector job growth in history. Corporate profits are up 166 percent and the Dow went from 7,949.09 and right now it is sitting at 18,547.30. Remember when Romney said he'd bring unemployment down to 6%? It's at 5 under Barack Obama. If President Obama were a Republican, you wouldn't be able to stop crowing about the economy.

And I'm still waiting for your link about Hillary's economic plans. I gave you the analysis of Don the Con's...it actually would be disasterous for our economy.

 

[Seawytch]

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Bingo! Ding, Ding, Ding....you finally caught on. It only took half a dozen posts explaining it to you. The criteria was not "non familial" as you wrongly claimed. It was one man and one woman of the same race. Then it became one man and one woman of any race. Currently is anyone with anyone because of an illegal and unconstitutional ruling.

So we're still waiting for an example from you wytchy were liberal's drew the line and refused to "progress" an issue any further. It's pretty sad that you can't come up with one example. Not even a small and silly one - much less one of substance.

Illegal ruling?

"Patriot" is a tenther.

 

[Seawytch]

Where is the lie, "Patriot"? Marriage was between one white man and one white woman. That is an indisputable fact...they were still non familial consenting adults, just like today. All the same rules still apply. Non familial consenting adult couples...blacks marrying whites, men marrying each other, women marrying each other, men marrying women. Non familial consenting adults, just like it's been since we stopped burning witches.

Because "non familial consenting adults" who were black and white could not marry. And "non familial consenting adults" who were of the same sex could not marry. So you were - and still are - lying. That was not the criteria. The criteria was one man and one woman.

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Based on the 14th amendment, shouldn't law prohibiting someone from marrying multiple spouses be unconstitutional and opposed by the same sex marriage crowd? You guys are all about equal protection until it involves situations you don't like or think shouldn't occur. Hypocrites.

If you think so, fight for it...just like interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did.

The ones that should be fighting for it are all you homos that SAID you believed in equality. We all knew it nothing more than for a personal agenda you abnormal, 2nd class freaks believed in. You cared nothing about equal protection and still don't.

You homos may be able to get married but you're married will still be less than mine simply because of WHAT you are.

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

 

[Conservative65]

Because "non familial consenting adults" who were black and white could not marry. And "non familial consenting adults" who were of the same sex could not marry. So you were - and still are - lying. That was not the criteria. The criteria was one man and one woman.

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Based on the 14th amendment, shouldn't law prohibiting someone from marrying multiple spouses be unconstitutional and opposed by the same sex marriage crowd? You guys are all about equal protection until it involves situations you don't like or think shouldn't occur. Hypocrites.

If you think so, fight for it...just like interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did.

The ones that should be fighting for it are all you homos that SAID you believed in equality. We all knew it nothing more than for a personal agenda you abnormal, 2nd class freaks believed in. You cared nothing about equal protection and still don't.

You homos may be able to get married but you're married will still be less than mine simply because of WHAT you are.

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

If you were behind it, you'd be leading the way. You got what you want, freak.

Don't think I'm behind any of that. My contention is with those who argued equal protection then run like spoiled brats when they get what they want. Typical of your kind.

 

[P@triot]

Let me guess...you think Obama has "destroyed" the economy don't you?

Well my dear - we have a record national debt (over $19 trillion), a record number of people out of the labor force, and a record number of people on food stamps. Any objective, reasonable, and rational person would consider that catastrophic and a monumental failure.

We went from hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month to the longest period of private sector job growth in history. Corporate profits are up 166 percent and the Dow went from 7,949.09 and right now it is sitting at 18,547.30. Remember when Romney said he'd bring unemployment down to 6%? It's at 5 under Barack Obama. If President Obama were a Republican, you wouldn't be able to stop crowing about the economy.

And I'm still waiting for your link about Hillary's economic plans. I gave you the analysis of Don the Con's...it actually would be disasterous for our economy.

Complete and total lies as usual. For starters - we have a record number of people who have dropped out of the labor force (as I have already stated). That means the real unemployment is no where near 5%. It's double digits right now. At least 10%. But because Obama doesn't have to count those - he dances a jig and drops the unemployment rate every time another person gives up looking for a job.

Second - Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth. The only one. That's failure sweetie.

If a Republican had these same economic numbers you'd be bitching up a storm. But you'll defend any failure by a liberal.

 

[P@triot]

That is correct, "patriot", they could not marry because there were laws prohibiting it. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment. Here endeth the lesson.

Bingo! Ding, Ding, Ding....you finally caught on. It only took half a dozen posts explaining it to you. The criteria was not "non familial" as you wrongly claimed. It was one man and one woman of the same race. Then it became one man and one woman of any race. Currently is anyone with anyone because of an illegal and unconstitutional ruling.

So we're still waiting for an example from you wytchy were liberal's drew the line and refused to "progress" an issue any further. It's pretty sad that you can't come up with one example. Not even a small and silly one - much less one of substance.

Illegal ruling?

"Patriot" is a tenther.

LMAO! Wytchy thinks only crazy people obey the law and that the federal government should enjoy totalitarian power.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me guess...you think Obama has "destroyed" the economy don't you?

Well my dear - we have a record national debt (over $19 trillion), a record number of people out of the labor force, and a record number of people on food stamps. Any objective, reasonable, and rational person would consider that catastrophic and a monumental failure.

We went from hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month to the longest period of private sector job growth in history. Corporate profits are up 166 percent and the Dow went from 7,949.09 and right now it is sitting at 18,547.30. Remember when Romney said he'd bring unemployment down to 6%? It's at 5 under Barack Obama. If President Obama were a Republican, you wouldn't be able to stop crowing about the economy.

And I'm still waiting for your link about Hillary's economic plans. I gave you the analysis of Don the Con's...it actually would be disasterous for our economy.

Complete and total lies as usual. For starters - we have a record number of people who have dropped out of the labor force (as I have already stated). That means the real unemployment is no where near 5%. It's double digits right now. At least 10%. But because Obama doesn't have to count those - he dances a jig and drops the unemployment rate every time another person gives up looking for a job.

Second - Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth. The only one. That's failure sweetie.

If a Republican had these same economic numbers you'd be bitching up a storm. But you'll defend any failure by a liberal.

Unemployment is counted the same way it's always been counted. There are not magic Obama numbers. Unemployment is at 5%, half of what it was when he took office.

I know this will probably bother you for the rest of your life, but Obama will go down in history as one of America's greatest Presidents and Hillary will be the next President.

 

[P@triot]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

 

[P@triot]

I know this will probably bother you for the rest of your life, but Obama will go down in history as one of America's greatest Presidents...

 

[P@triot]

Unemployment is counted the same way it's always been counted. There are not magic Obama numbers. Unemployment is at 5%, half of what it was when he took office.

More people have left the labor force under Barack Obama than any point in history. Obama destroyed the economy to the point that people have just given up looking for jobs. The actual unemployment is double digits under Obama and always has been.

 

[P@triot]

I know this will probably bother you for the rest of your life, but Obama will go down in history...

...as the only president to not see a single year of 3% or more GDP growth. Epic failure.

 

[Seawytch]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

I said I support him in his fight. There actually can be found societal harm in polygamy. The same cannot be said for interracial or gay coupled marrying.

I'll support polygamy 100% as long as at least one of the multiple spouses is required to be over 40 and they all must be at least 18.

 

[P@triot]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

I said I support him in his fight. There actually can be found societal harm in polygamy. The same cannot be said for interracial or gay coupled marrying.

I'll support polygamy 100% as long as at least one of the multiple spouses is required to be over 40 and they all must be at least 18.

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

 

[Silhouette]

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

I can imagine 3 or more generations of all male "families" where none of them ever knew a mother or a grandmother figure. In other words, I've read about Ancient Greece.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

I can imagine 3 or more generations of all male "families" where none of them ever knew a mother or a grandmother figure. In other words, I've read about Ancient Greece.

Are you saying this in a thread about polygamy?

 

[Seawytch]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

I said I support him in his fight. There actually can be found societal harm in polygamy. The same cannot be said for interracial or gay coupled marrying.

I'll support polygamy 100% as long as at least one of the multiple spouses is required to be over 40 and they all must be at least 18.

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

I promise that 10 years from now polygamists will not be allowed to legally marry, nor will siblings or other close familial ties. You also will not be able to marry an animal or inanimate object.

I don't give two shits if it is, I just know it will not be. You can put out your hair.

 

[P@triot]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

I said I support him in his fight. There actually can be found societal harm in polygamy. The same cannot be said for interracial or gay coupled marrying.

I'll support polygamy 100% as long as at least one of the multiple spouses is required to be over 40 and they all must be at least 18.

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

I promise that 10 years from now polygamists will not be allowed to legally marry, nor will siblings or other close familial ties. You also will not be able to marry an animal or inanimate object.

I don't give two shits if it is, I just know it will not be. You can put out your hair.

It's not a question of whether they will or will not be able to. Conservatives have managed to stop quit a bit of your bat-shit crazy liberalism over the years. The issue is that the left in this country will be supporting all of that (and worse) and fighting for it to come to fruition.

You've yet to provide even a single example of liberals putting their foot down and proclaiming "we will not 'progress' past this point". That's because it has never happened and it never will.

 

[HappyJoy]

I do believe in equality and I believe you are equally able to fight for what you believe in as interracial couples, formerly divorced couples, couples in which one or more partners is incarcerated and gay couples did. File your case, I'm behind you 100%!

So to be clear - you 100% support polygyny and polyandry? You will vote for it on a ballot?

I said I support him in his fight. There actually can be found societal harm in polygamy. The same cannot be said for interracial or gay coupled marrying.

I'll support polygamy 100% as long as at least one of the multiple spouses is required to be over 40 and they all must be at least 18.

Well - you just proved that I was 100% correct on your "slippery slope" quip. Already we see support from the left to move beyond two people of "non familial" consenting adults and it's been - what - only a year. Can you imagine 10 years from now?

I promise that 10 years from now polygamists will not be allowed to legally marry, nor will siblings or other close familial ties. You also will not be able to marry an animal or inanimate object.

I don't give two shits if it is, I just know it will not be. You can put out your hair.

It's not a question of whether they will or will not be able to. Conservatives have managed to stop quit a bit of your bat-shit crazy liberalism over the years. The issue is that the left in this country will be supporting all of that (and worse) and fighting for it to come to fruition.

You've yet to provide even a single example of liberals putting their foot down and proclaiming "we will not 'progress' past this point". That's because it has never happened and it never will.

Why do liberals need to? I don't hear them talking about legalizing incest, polygamy or whatever right wing perverts like to get into. Have a problem with polygamy? Talk to the really nutty Mormons about it.