Mississippi School does the right thing: Bans prom due to Lesbian couple attending.

[del]

Mal's well articulated nonsense completely withstanding, I've still never heard of a single legitimate reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. I simply do not see one lick's worth of harm in it. Therefore I must conclude that vehement opposition to it is borne out of bigotry, some overt, some latent.

Dismissing my Points don't make them go away, Mani...

Niether does Employing Homosexuality as a Pejorative...
Tire OLD Tactic, that is.

"You don't Believe Homosexuals should have Marriage Equal to that of Heterosexuals?... What are you, some kind of Faggot?"...

^Doesn't Silence me... Bodey's been Trying that one for the better part of a Decade.

And yes, I Used "Faggot" because what the Homosexuality as a Pejorative Tactic is in a Discussion is an Attack, so it might as well not Dishonestly be Presented as something Polite and Honest, when it Fact it is Calling someone a "Faggot" because they Disagree.

I can Discuss this Issue without Calling Names as I have been...

OR we can Begin the Food Fight.



peace...

when did bigotry become a synonym for *faggot*, asshat?

 

[CurveLight]

And I am NOT for Denying you ANY Rights, Ravi...

That's the Difference between you and I.



peace...

Do you support same sex marriage? Yes or no?

No... Redefining Marriage is NOT a Right.

No Consenting Adult is Denied Marriage in this Country.



peace...

I didn't ask anything about "redefining marriage." Do you realize it is impossible to redefine marriage?


But thank you for admitting you favor the Crotch Watch over the Constitution.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Mal's well articulated nonsense completely withstanding, I've still never heard of a single legitimate reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. I simply do not see one lick's worth of harm in it. Therefore I must conclude that vehement opposition to it is borne out of bigotry, some overt, some latent.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again.

Its a STATE issue. If a state, like mine, decides is cool and legal for same sex couples to marry then its legit. If another state says no they can't that is legit also.

Its not a federal issue. The federal government has no constitutional authority to pass a law about marriage one way or the other.

Its pretty simple and I dont get everyone being in 90 pages worth of a tizzy over it.

 

[mal]

Do you support same sex marriage? Yes or no?

No... Redefining Marriage is NOT a Right.

No Consenting Adult is Denied Marriage in this Country.



peace...

I didn't ask anything about "redefining marriage." Do you realize it is impossible to redefine marriage?


But thank you for admitting you favor the Crotch Watch over the Constitution.

Of course you did...

"Same Sex Marriage" would Redefine Marriage to something it's Incapable of being.

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

^Marriage as a Right... For One Man and One Woman... As the Court has Ruled.

Amend the Constitution or get the SCOTUS to Vote in your Favor.

Even then, it won't be Marriage...



peace...

 

[mal]

Mal's well articulated nonsense completely withstanding, I've still never heard of a single legitimate reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. I simply do not see one lick's worth of harm in it. Therefore I must conclude that vehement opposition to it is borne out of bigotry, some overt, some latent.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again.

Its a STATE issue. If a state, like mine, decides is cool and legal for same sex couples to marry then its legit. If another state says no they can't that is legit also.

Its not a federal issue. The federal government has no constitutional authority to pass a law about marriage one way or the other.

Its pretty simple and I dont get everyone being in 90 pages worth of a tizzy over it.

Should the Fed NOT have been Involved with States Denying Blacks and Whites to Marry?...

Should it be OK for Alabama to Deny Marriage Based on Race?...



peace...

 

[CurveLight]

No... Redefining Marriage is NOT a Right.

No Consenting Adult is Denied Marriage in this Country.



peace...

I didn't ask anything about "redefining marriage." Do you realize it is impossible to redefine marriage?


But thank you for admitting you favor the Crotch Watch over the Constitution.

Of course you did...

"Same Sex Marriage" would Redefine Marriage to something it's Incapable of being.

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

^Marriage as a Right... For One Man and One Woman... As the Court has Ruled.

Amend the Constitution or get the SCOTUS to Vote in your Favor.

Even then, it won't be Marriage...



peace...

The amazement never ends. Bigots are always the least informed.

There are several different legal definitions in the US.

Marriage is no where in the Constitution.

 

[mal]

I didn't ask anything about "redefining marriage." Do you realize it is impossible to redefine marriage?


But thank you for admitting you favor the Crotch Watch over the Constitution.

Of course you did...

"Same Sex Marriage" would Redefine Marriage to something it's Incapable of being.

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

^Marriage as a Right... For One Man and One Woman... As the Court has Ruled.

Amend the Constitution or get the SCOTUS to Vote in your Favor.

Even then, it won't be Marriage...



peace...

The amazement never ends. Bigots are always the least informed.

There are several different legal definitions in the US.

Marriage is no where in the Constitution.

All of what you said is Meaningless to what IS.

And Calling me a Bigot doesn't make you any LESS of a Child Molestor... Give that some Thought, Dingleberry...



peace...

 

[Vanquish]

Mal actually makes a good point...about the similarity of race and sexual orientation marriage laws and the authority for both.

Equal Protection is NOT merely a state issue...it's a Federal issue. I could repost my run-down of homosexual marriage and misogenation law...but it'd probably be wasted.

Mal's wrong about everything else, but I'll rep him for acknowledging at least that.

 

[CurveLight]

Of course you did...

"Same Sex Marriage" would Redefine Marriage to something it's Incapable of being.

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

^Marriage as a Right... For One Man and One Woman... As the Court has Ruled.

Amend the Constitution or get the SCOTUS to Vote in your Favor.

Even then, it won't be Marriage...



peace...

The amazement never ends. Bigots are always the least informed.

There are several different legal definitions in the US.

Marriage is no where in the Constitution.

All of what you said is Meaningless to what IS.

And Calling me a Bigot doesn't make you any LESS of a Child Molestor... Give that some Thought, Dingleberry...



peace...

I'm shocked by your genius.

Ever respond to this post?

 

[bodecea]

The amazement never ends. Bigots are always the least informed.

There are several different legal definitions in the US.

Marriage is no where in the Constitution.

All of what you said is Meaningless to what IS.

And Calling me a Bigot doesn't make you any LESS of a Child Molestor... Give that some Thought, Dingleberry...



peace...

I'm shocked by your genius.

Ever respond to this post?

Hey...cut him some slack. He goes with what he knows.

 

[manifold]

All of what you said is Meaningless to what IS.

And Calling me a Bigot doesn't make you any LESS of a Child Molestor... Give that some Thought, Dingleberry...



peace...

I'm shocked by your genius.

Ever respond to this post?

Hey...cut him some slack. He goes with what he knows.

And then some.

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2106015-post852.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Mal's well articulated nonsense completely withstanding, I've still never heard of a single legitimate reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. I simply do not see one lick's worth of harm in it. Therefore I must conclude that vehement opposition to it is borne out of bigotry, some overt, some latent.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again.

Its a STATE issue. If a state, like mine, decides is cool and legal for same sex couples to marry then its legit. If another state says no they can't that is legit also.

Its not a federal issue. The federal government has no constitutional authority to pass a law about marriage one way or the other.

Its pretty simple and I dont get everyone being in 90 pages worth of a tizzy over it.

Should the Fed NOT have been Involved with States Denying Blacks and Whites to Marry?...

Should it be OK for Alabama to Deny Marriage Based on Race?...



peace...

Its not ok but if thats what the state decides is their law then thats the law. I love this red herring though, it always works like a charm for those who use it.

The feds have no constitutional authority to override state law. They have however legislated themselves that authority in an unconstitutional way...much like what they are trying to do with the healthcare bill now, legislate themselves to make laws without having to vote on them in both houses.

 

[Vanquish]

Plymco...I love you man...but you're wrong.

Go read up on Federal Pre-emption doctrine.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Plymco...I love you man...but you're wrong.

Go read up on Federal Pre-emption doctrine.

Where did that doctrine originate (not in the constitution)

 

[Samson]

No... Redefining Marriage is NOT a Right.

No Consenting Adult is Denied Marriage in this Country.



peace...

I didn't ask anything about "redefining marriage." Do you realize it is impossible to redefine marriage?


But thank you for admitting you favor the Crotch Watch over the Constitution.

Of course you did...

"Same Sex Marriage" would Redefine Marriage to something it's Incapable of being.

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

^Marriage as a Right... For One Man and One Woman... As the Court has Ruled.

Amend the Constitution or get the SCOTUS to Vote in your Favor.

Even then, it won't be Marriage...



peace...

Malcontent + Curvelight = Migraine

 

[Samson]

Plymco...I love you man...but you're wrong.

Go read up on Federal Pre-emption doctrine.

Where did that doctrine originate (not in the constitution)

Plymco + Vanquish = Bicurious

 

[manifold]

Ravi + Recherche = Samson

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Plymco...I love you man...but you're wrong.

Go read up on Federal Pre-emption doctrine.

Where did that doctrine originate (not in the constitution)

Plymco + Vanquish = Bicurious

LOL I AM from Massachussetts

 

[Ravi]

sigh...I miss Recherche