Same-sex couples start marrying in Conn.

[BlackAsCoal]

That's funny comming from a Zionist Jew who defends building a wall in Israel to keep the Palestenian people seperate!!!!

That's funny coming from a lunatic closet homosexual.

Personally, I think a wall should be built to keep you seperate from people with brains .. and a conscience .. and spirituality.

You may have religion, but you have no sense of spirituality.

 

[DiamondDave]

Neither race nor specific species identification are an invention. Marriage only exists as a concept and legal construct. Being "black" or "black enough" is a perspective which varies dependent on the eye of the beholder and open to any interpretation.

Marriage is a legal contract, a union, a partnership. That is the definition of marriage.

All words are purely conventional devices and tools, and modern language redefines them all the time.

marriage is directly linked to matrimony... which has been always associated with the union of a MAN and a a WOMAN.... the UNION is what is recognized by the government... the DEFINITION is it's own... just as I do not have the right to redefine dog to suit my needs, you nor any liberal nor any homosexual has the right to redefine marriage... you do, however, have the right to have your type of family union ALSO recognized by the government for equal treatment

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Then I guess men and women cannot be deemed equal... Hispanics not equal to Asians, not equal to Eskimos, not equal to Whites, not equal to Blacks?

The key is we have things that make us separate... there are labels everywhere in government... does not mean they cannot be deemed equal and treated equal under the law..

Have the government recognize all things as unions for all I care... for in fact a marriage is a union recognized by the law... but also in fact marriage or matrimony is indeed defined as a union between a man and a woman... if the government recognizes other family unions as being equal to marriage in rights (inheritance, med decisions, power of attorney, etc) that should be good..

But as I have sated before.. that is not the objective... pushing the gay agenda is the objective... not just equal rights under the law

The gay agenda is equal rights under law .. that's why they're changing the laws. I don't they care one bit about someone's "definition" .. they only care what the law says.

 

[DiamondDave]

The gay agenda is equal rights under law .. that's why they're changing the laws. I don't they care one bit about someone's "definition" .. they only care what the law says.

As do I... I am all for recognizing this DIFFERENT type of family union under the law... to afford the same rights....

But when it comes to infringing or changing the definition of marriage... as a means to try and 'crack' the establishment or to 'stick one' to the church or the parts of society who do not agree with homosexuality... that IS INDEED the gay agenda... and it is why they are stuck on this who redefining marriage part INSTEAD of accepting that their different union should be just accepted and not be discriminated against under the law

 

[BlackAsCoal]

marriage is directly linked to matrimony... which has been always associated with the union of a MAN and a a WOMAN.... the UNION is what is recognized by the government... the DEFINITION is it's own... just as I do not have the right to redefine dog to suit my needs, you nor any liberal nor any homosexual has the right to redefine marriage... you do, however, have the right to have your type of family union ALSO recognized by the government for equal treatment

I was once defined as 3/5ths human.

Women were once defined as subservient to men.

Liberals, conservatives, and everyone else has a right to redefine injustice.

The battle you're fighting is completely unwinnable.

Tell me you at least know that.

 

[DiamondDave]

I was once defined as 3/5ths human.

Women were once defined as subservient to men.

Liberals, conservatives, and everyone else has a right to redefine injustice.

The battle you're fighting is completely unwinnable.

Tell me you at least know that.

Your race was classified as having the 3/5 stipulation.... but the definition of human is indeed still human... something that is indeed NOT human (a Chimp or a Giraffe) does not get to be redefined as human just because a group wants a chimp to have the same human rights

And as for woman... the definition of woman did not change, but their rights DID.... and that is the key here.. the RIGHTS... but not the RIGHT to REDEFINE

 

[BlackAsCoal]

As do I... I am all for recognizing this DIFFERENT type of family union under the law... to afford the same rights....

But when it comes to infringing or changing the definition of marriage... as a means to try and 'crack' the establishment or to 'stick one' to the church or the parts of society who do not agree with homosexuality... that IS INDEED the gay agenda... and it is why they are stuck on this who redefining marriage part INSTEAD of accepting that their different union should be just accepted and not be discriminated against under the law

Tell me that at least you know.

 

[Sunni Man]

I was once defined as 3/5ths human.

The person doing the rating that day was being very generous!!!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Your race was classified as having the 3/5 stipulation.... but the definition of human is indeed still human... something that is indeed NOT human (a Chimp or a Giraffe) does not get to be redefined as human just because a group wants a chimp to have the same human rights

And as for woman... the definition of woman did not change, but their rights DID.... and that is the key here.. the RIGHTS... but not the RIGHT to REDEFINE

My brother .. something that is 3/5ths human is not human .. you'd only be part human .. what are the other 2/5ths?

Tell me you know.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The person doing the rating that day was being very generous!!!

The muslim closet homosexual speaks. I'm bettin' you're sitting there typing that dumb shit in panties.

 

[DiamondDave]

Tell me that at least you know.

You are trying to get someone to concede a point that has nothing to do with the argument... I know my history very well... (including the history of failure with socialism)

In fact.. under the constitution at the time... it did not say that "all other persons" were not persons.... it was in terms of rights, accounting etc.... it was not redefining PERSON or HUMAN..... whereas the gay movement is intent on the REDEFINITION of the concept and institution of marriage

I am all for the equal rights of recognized family unions... man/man man/woman woman/woman.... I am entirely for equality, freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility.... I am not for the whim agenda of redefinition of marriage.

There are differences in all of us... race, age, sex, mental fortitude, etc.. recognizing those differences does not mean the support of inequality... and ignoring those differences does not mean the support of equality

 

[DiamondDave]

My brother .. something that is 3/5ths human is not human .. you'd only be part human .. what are the other 2/5ths?

Tell me you know.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

learn your history

It was in determining rights, accountability etc... it did not deem someone as 3/5 human... it was all about the representation and taxation under the government... I.E. the rights.... but if you will notice it said "all other persons".... not that all others were redefined as 3/5 human...

Granted slavery was completely wrong (goes without saying usually).. and it was the repression of rights...

But at least get your argument straight... and recognize it was about rights, as this is about rights... .and should not be about the redefinition of marriage, but rather the government recognition of the other types of family unions

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You are trying to get someone to concede a point that has nothing to do with the argument... I know my history very well... (including the history of failure with socialism)

In fact.. under the constitution at the time... it did not say that "all other persons" were not persons.... it was in terms of rights, accounting etc.... it was not redefining PERSON or HUMAN..... whereas the gay movement is intent on the REDEFINITION of the concept and institution of marriage

I am all for the equal rights of recognized family unions... man/man man/woman woman/woman.... I am entirely for equality, freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility.... I am not for the whim agenda of redefinition of marriage.

There are differences in all of us... race, age, sex, mental fortitude, etc.. recognizing those differences does not mean the support of inequality... and ignoring those differences does not mean the support of equality

The bottom line to this argument is that I do not share your perspective of "equlaity", nor your interprtation of history.

Gays, like socialism, ain't going anywhere .. in fact, both are expanding their reach.

The reason you never answered if you know is because you do.

I'm comfortable allowing the law to determine whose perspective stands the test of time .. and we both know the answer to that.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm bettin' you're sitting there typing that dumb shit in panties.

I find it very disturbing BAC that you are having sick homosexual fantasies about me!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

The bottom line to this argument is that I do not share your perspective of "equlaity", nor your interprtation of history.

Gays, like socialism, ain't going anywhere .. in fact, both are expanding their reach.

The reason you never answered if you know is because you do.

I'm comfortable allowing the law to determine whose perspective stands the test of time .. and we both know the answer to that.

I'll repeat it

There are differences in all of us... race, age, sex, mental fortitude, etc.. recognizing those differences does not mean the support of inequality... and ignoring those differences does not mean the support of equality

And socialism, even if the ignorant support of it goes nowhere, is and always will be a failure of a social system.... a system that cannot work in combination with the concepts of freedom and liberty.... unless you have a society of slaves, robots, and prisoners, it will always be doomed to failure

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberty, justice and equal treatment under the law is all well and fine.. it does not, however, give them the right to redefine what a marriage is and has always been.... civil union ceremonies? All well and fine... but unless it is truly a man and a woman, it cannot be marriage

Are we really arguing over a word?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

learn your history

It was in determining rights, accountability etc... it did not deem someone as 3/5 human... it was all about the representation and taxation under the government... I.E. the rights.... but if you will notice it said "all other persons".... not that all others were redefined as 3/5 human...

Granted slavery was completely wrong (goes without saying usually).. and it was the repression of rights...

But at least get your argument straight... and recognize it was about rights, as this is about rights... .and should not be about the redefinition of marriage, but rather the government recognition of the other types of family unions

I do quite well with history .. but thanks.

Irrespective of the relationship to tax classification assigned to the 3/5ths clause, that definiton worked it way into American discourse, poetry, and law .. and was often cited by Jim Crow laws, that had nothing to do with taxes, as justification for oppression.

I recognize that it was about rights then just as I recognize this is about rights now .. and I also recognize that rights are determined by what you can demand, not biblical definitions, not what Jesus what do, not by what you think is just.

Gays WILL continue to grow the power needed to demand the right to be married.

It doesn't matter how much you don't like it.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Are we really arguing over a word?

Actually the word we're arguing over is change .. some people can't deal with it.

 

[Sunni Man]

Gays WILL continue to grow the power needed to demand the right to be married.

Not really.

Because they basically don't reproduce.

And their numbers are constantly reduced by disease and infections.

Homos will decrease in number and power as time goes by.

 

[DiamondDave]

And the opposition will remain strong... in terms of redefinition

Rights are based on what citizens demand... but facts and what things are do not change... while uber-lefties and socialists would love to just lump everyone and everything together, eliminating the individual... we are still and will always be individuals with differences... recognizable differences... factual differences.... but recognizing the differences and still having a liberty based free society with equal treatment is indeed the goal...

Just as unequal treatment of other races (including blacks and native americans) was wrong... I believe unequal treatment of homosexuals is wrong... they are just another group of individual citizens, who while different, deserve the same rights as everyone else without infringing on the rights of others... but the union of a man and a man is still factually, physically, and historically different than the union of a man and a woman... we all know this... and equal treatment does not change that fact, nor does it change what something is (including what marriage is and always has been)...