Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Ravi]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

This should be illegal

Nuff for me

Why?

The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.

They are equal under the constitution so the "coupling" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

If they ain't equal in biology, ain't no law going to change that

You are denying biology, a sure sign of delusion.

There's no reason to change the laws of biology. Marriage isn't a biological function.

 

[jillian]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.

what are you blathering about?

 

[Ravi]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

 

[Conservative65]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

 

[Pop23]

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

This should be illegal

Nuff for me

Why?

The two demographic groups are nowhere close to being equal by biology. The law cannot change this TRUTH.

And marriage has nothing to do with biology, and your fanaticism cannot change THAT truth.

The two demographic groups therefor aren't closely related then

Thanks for the help

 

[Conservative65]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.

I'm sorry you're retarded enough to think that a homo scares me.

I'm sorry you think that I have to respond in a way you think I should.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.

 

[Conservative65]

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.

The problem is their decisions affect the rest of us.

 

[Pop23]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!

 

[jillian]

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.

 

[Pop23]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.

Laughing at, and scared of are two completely different things.

 

[Ravi]

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.

The problem is their decisions affect the rest of us.

How are you affected?

 

[jillian]

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.

The problem is their decisions affect the rest of us.

how?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!

you keep making these stupid comments that have no basis in reality.

 

[Pop23]

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.

You should really reconsider your usage of the word "normal"

 

[Ravi]

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!

You aren't a freakshow because you are straight. And what is a leg humper?

 

[jillian]

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

Hey hetero! I'm sorry that you are frightened by gay people.

Laughing at, and scared of are two completely different things.

if you were "laughing at" them, you wouldn't spend so much of your time talking about them. you'd just shut your stupid mouth and sit back bemused.

 

[jillian]

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.

You should really reconsider your usage of the word "normal"

no. you're so far to the extremes, you and your little loony toon friends, that I have no need to do that, little boy

 

[Pop23]

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

So...the Supreme Court oversteps their bounds whenever they declare a state law unconstitutional? like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

Not when the authority to do so is addressed in the Constitution. You lose when you use something that was decided based on race not gender.

Decisions made by enablers rarely make sense. That's why their called enablers.

The problem is their decisions affect the rest of us.

how?

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!

you keep making these stupid comments that have no basis in reality.

You just can't make this shit up folks.

And the laughs it creates are absolutely free!

 

[Pop23]

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Not interested in whether or not you think I'm politically correct or civil. I wasn't put on this earth to do things because they suit you. You don't have to like how I express myself. You have two options if you don't: You can either get over it or tough shit.

that whole "political correctness" rant is just a bigot's way of whining about the fact that what they believe isn't acceptable in normal society.

You should really reconsider your usage of the word "normal"

no. you're so far to the extremes, you and your little loony toon friends, that I have no need to do that, little boy

Lol, omg, your delusion of normalcy is so darned cute!

 

[toxicmedia]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.

Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.