Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[RKMBrown]

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.

You are too ******* illiterate to even KNOW what your rights are. My rights are inherit. LMFAO!

You mean to be saying "inherent" and it means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something. There is nothing basic in nature about homosexual behavior. It may be basic nature for some people to be homosexual, and if you find a law that bans homosexuality, I am for striking it down.

You pissweasels always pull this "tyrany of the majority" card out whenever you're in the minority. As soon as you get one vote more than the other side, you're perfectly FINE with ramming through whatever kakamamie idea you please, like Obamacare.

You're just a homophobic POS bigot. Oh and gratz on finding my spelling error, ya putz.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.

I'm NOT wrong, there is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex, that isn't what marriage is. Same sex partners can have a relationship, just like someone can have a relationship with an inanimate object, that's not "marriage." You continue to want to call it that, and act as if we've established this as a fact, but it's not a fact and hasn't been established.

Dumb ass. In disagreeing with me, you just stated that "a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are not fundamentally different; and placing a modifier on the front of a term changes the term, it does not qualify it." You might want to read what's in blue again... it seems to have gone right over your head.

 

[Boss]

Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.

I'm NOT wrong, there is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex, that isn't what marriage is. Same sex partners can have a relationship, just like someone can have a relationship with an inanimate object, that's not "marriage." You continue to want to call it that, and act as if we've established this as a fact, but it's not a fact and hasn't been established.

Dumb ass. In disagreeing with me, you just stated that "a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are not fundamentally different; and placing a modifier on the front of a term changes the term, it does not qualify it." You might want to read what's in blue again... it seems to have gone right over your head.

You're confused. "a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are not fundamentally different; and placing a modifier on the front of a term changes the term, it does not qualify it." <-- this is YOUR quote, not mine. I don't agree with it, I totally disagree with it.

Marriage is one thing, the union of a man and woman. Same sex couples are not a man and woman. Just like a man and little girl is not a man and woman, just like a woman and a german shepherd is not a man and woman, just like a man and his mailbox are not a man and woman. Furthermore, there are other restrictions which apply to marriage, the man and woman can't be immediately related. The man and woman have to be of legal age. The man and woman must both consent. The man and woman must be living. The man and woman must not be married to another man or woman. The man and woman have to pay the fee for their license. These are NOT discriminations, they are parameters of what defines legal marriage.

 

[Boss]

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.

You are too ******* illiterate to even KNOW what your rights are. My rights are inherit. LMFAO!

You mean to be saying "inherent" and it means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something. There is nothing basic in nature about homosexual behavior. It may be basic nature for some people to be homosexual, and if you find a law that bans homosexuality, I am for striking it down.

You pissweasels always pull this "tyrany of the majority" card out whenever you're in the minority. As soon as you get one vote more than the other side, you're perfectly FINE with ramming through whatever kakamamie idea you please, like Obamacare.

You're just a homophobic POS bigot. Oh and gratz on finding my spelling error, ya putz.

Again, MY viewpoint regarding civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple. Are they bigoted homophobes? I've presented a solution to the issue which gives all sides ostensibly what they want and resolves this forever... you chortle "homophobe" at me and just keep on trucking.

And I am sorry, you didn't make a spelling error because you typed it twice in two different sentences. You thought it was the right word because you're an ignoramus. Instead of having enough common sense to let your error waft away like a bad fart, you try to defend it. So you are an ignoramus with no common sense.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.

You are too ******* illiterate to even KNOW what your rights are. My rights are inherit. LMFAO!

You mean to be saying "inherent" and it means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something. There is nothing basic in nature about homosexual behavior. It may be basic nature for some people to be homosexual, and if you find a law that bans homosexuality, I am for striking it down.

You pissweasels always pull this "tyrany of the majority" card out whenever you're in the minority. As soon as you get one vote more than the other side, you're perfectly FINE with ramming through whatever kakamamie idea you please, like Obamacare.

You're just a homophobic POS bigot. Oh and gratz on finding my spelling error, ya putz.

Again, MY viewpoint regarding civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple. Are they bigoted homophobes? I've presented a solution to the issue which gives all sides ostensibly what they want and resolves this forever... you chortle "homophobe" at me and just keep on trucking.

And I am sorry, you didn't make a spelling error because you typed it twice in two different sentences. You thought it was the right word because you're an ignoramus. Instead of having enough common sense to let your error waft away like a bad fart, you try to defend it. So you are an ignoramus with no common sense.

Dumb ass POS. Some times I type 'and' instead of 'an'. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these types of mistakes typos. Sometimes I type your when I meant you're. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these editing errors. Get over yourself nimrod.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.

I'm NOT wrong, there is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex, that isn't what marriage is. Same sex partners can have a relationship, just like someone can have a relationship with an inanimate object, that's not "marriage." You continue to want to call it that, and act as if we've established this as a fact, but it's not a fact and hasn't been established.

Dumb ass. In disagreeing with me, you just stated that "a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are not fundamentally different; and placing a modifier on the front of a term changes the term, it does not qualify it." You might want to read what's in blue again... it seems to have gone right over your head.

You're confused. "a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are not fundamentally different; and placing a modifier on the front of a term changes the term, it does not qualify it." <-- this is YOUR quote, not mine. I don't agree with it, I totally disagree with it.

Marriage is one thing, the union of a man and woman. Same sex couples are not a man and woman. Just like a man and little girl is not a man and woman, just like a woman and a german shepherd is not a man and woman, just like a man and his mailbox are not a man and woman. Furthermore, there are other restrictions which apply to marriage, the man and woman can't be immediately related. The man and woman have to be of legal age. The man and woman must both consent. The man and woman must be living. The man and woman must not be married to another man or woman. The man and woman have to pay the fee for their license. These are NOT discriminations, they are parameters of what defines legal marriage.

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

 

[Boss]

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.

You are too ******* illiterate to even KNOW what your rights are. My rights are inherit. LMFAO!

You mean to be saying "inherent" and it means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something. There is nothing basic in nature about homosexual behavior. It may be basic nature for some people to be homosexual, and if you find a law that bans homosexuality, I am for striking it down.

You pissweasels always pull this "tyrany of the majority" card out whenever you're in the minority. As soon as you get one vote more than the other side, you're perfectly FINE with ramming through whatever kakamamie idea you please, like Obamacare.

You're just a homophobic POS bigot. Oh and gratz on finding my spelling error, ya putz.

Again, MY viewpoint regarding civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple. Are they bigoted homophobes? I've presented a solution to the issue which gives all sides ostensibly what they want and resolves this forever... you chortle "homophobe" at me and just keep on trucking.

And I am sorry, you didn't make a spelling error because you typed it twice in two different sentences. You thought it was the right word because you're an ignoramus. Instead of having enough common sense to let your error waft away like a bad fart, you try to defend it. So you are an ignoramus with no common sense.

Dumb ass POS. Some times I type and instead of an. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these types of mistakes typos. Sometimes I type your when I meant you're. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these editing errors. Get over yourself nimrod.

It's called being an illiterate idiot... that's what we call it. Typos are when you accidentally type the wrong letter, not when you use the wrong word repeatedly. Editing errors are when you use improper structure, putting a comma in the wrong place or not structuring proper paragraphs. We can all be excused for those types of errors unless we're writing a term paper. When you use words like "and" instead of "an" and "your" instead of "you're" ...or even "some times" instead of "sometimes" ...those are not spelling errors or grammatical errors, they are a sign of illiteracy.

 

[Boss]

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

No, they don't exist because that isn't marriage. The word marriage doesn't have to be qualified, it stands alone as what it is, the union of a man and woman. There is no need for a modifier. You do not go get a "heterosexual marriage" license. I didn't claim there was no such thing as the phrase... we can put together all sorts of phrases that don't define something that exists in reality.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways...

I've read my posts several times and I don't see where I have been inconsistent. There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" or "homosexual marriage" ...there is only one marriage, the union of a man and woman. Whether they are homo or hetero is academic. Marriage is not defined by sexuality and is not allowed or disallowed because of it.

Aside from the gay couple who I get my civil unions viewpoint from, I also know a homosexual man and homosexual woman who are married to each other. They both do their own thing, I don't have a problem with it, what happens in their bedroom is not my business. Their marriage is legitimate because it's a man and woman of legal age who consent and are not related.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.

You are too ******* illiterate to even KNOW what your rights are. My rights are inherit. LMFAO!

You mean to be saying "inherent" and it means belonging to the basic nature of someone or something. There is nothing basic in nature about homosexual behavior. It may be basic nature for some people to be homosexual, and if you find a law that bans homosexuality, I am for striking it down.

You pissweasels always pull this "tyrany of the majority" card out whenever you're in the minority. As soon as you get one vote more than the other side, you're perfectly FINE with ramming through whatever kakamamie idea you please, like Obamacare.

You're just a homophobic POS bigot. Oh and gratz on finding my spelling error, ya putz.

Again, MY viewpoint regarding civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple. Are they bigoted homophobes? I've presented a solution to the issue which gives all sides ostensibly what they want and resolves this forever... you chortle "homophobe" at me and just keep on trucking.

And I am sorry, you didn't make a spelling error because you typed it twice in two different sentences. You thought it was the right word because you're an ignoramus. Instead of having enough common sense to let your error waft away like a bad fart, you try to defend it. So you are an ignoramus with no common sense.

Dumb ass POS. Some times I type and instead of an. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these types of mistakes typos. Sometimes I type your when I meant you're. It's not because I don't know the difference. We call these editing errors. Get over yourself nimrod.

It's called being an illiterate idiot... that's what we call it. Typos are when you accidentally type the wrong letter, not when you use the wrong word repeatedly. Editing errors are when you use improper structure, putting a comma in the wrong place or not structuring proper paragraphs. We can all be excused for those types of errors unless we're writing a term paper. When you use words like "and" instead of "an" and "your" instead of "you're" ...or even "some times" instead of "sometimes" ...those are not spelling errors or grammatical errors, they are a sign of illiteracy.

Non-sense. A mistake is a mistake dumb ass. I type 90 words a min. I don't bother to confirm that I've typed everything perfectly for your dumb ass. This is a message board not an english class. These are casual posts not term papers. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Boss]

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

No, they don't exist because that isn't marriage. The word marriage doesn't have to be qualified, it stands alone as what it is, the union of a man and woman. There is no need for a modifier. You do not go get a "heterosexual marriage" license. I didn't claim there was no such thing as the phrase... we can put together all sorts of phrases that don't define something that exists in reality.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways...

I've read my posts several times and I don't see where I have been inconsistent. There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" or "homosexual marriage" ...there is only one marriage, the union of a man and woman. Whether they are homo or hetero is academic. Marriage is not defined by sexuality and is not allowed or disallowed because of it.

Aside from the gay couple who I get my civil unions viewpoint from, I also know a homosexual man and homosexual woman who are married to each other. They both do their own thing, I don't have a problem with it, what happens in their bedroom is not my business. Their marriage is legitimate because it's a man and woman of legal age who consent and are not related.

 

[Boss]

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

No, they don't exist because that isn't marriage. The word marriage doesn't have to be qualified, it stands alone as what it is, the union of a man and woman. There is no need for a modifier. You do not go get a "heterosexual marriage" license. I didn't claim there was no such thing as the phrase... we can put together all sorts of phrases that don't define something that exists in reality.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways...

I've read my posts several times and I don't see where I have been inconsistent. There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" or "homosexual marriage" ...there is only one marriage, the union of a man and woman. Whether they are homo or hetero is academic. Marriage is not defined by sexuality and is not allowed or disallowed because of it.

Aside from the gay couple who I get my civil unions viewpoint from, I also know a homosexual man and homosexual woman who are married to each other. They both do their own thing, I don't have a problem with it, what happens in their bedroom is not my business. Their marriage is legitimate because it's a man and woman of legal age who consent and are not related.

 

[Boss]

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

No, they don't exist because that isn't marriage. The word marriage doesn't have to be qualified, it stands alone as what it is, the union of a man and woman. There is no need for a modifier. You do not go get a "heterosexual marriage" license. I didn't claim there was no such thing as the phrase... we can put together all sorts of phrases that don't define something that exists in reality.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways...

I've read my posts several times and I don't see where I have been inconsistent. There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" or "homosexual marriage" ...there is only one marriage, the union of a man and woman. Whether they are homo or hetero is academic. Marriage is not defined by sexuality and is not allowed or disallowed because of it.

Aside from the gay couple who I get my civil unions viewpoint from, I also know a homosexual man and homosexual woman who are married to each other. They both do their own thing, I don't have a problem with it, what happens in their bedroom is not my business. Their marriage is legitimate because it's a man and woman of legal age who consent and are not related.

 

[RKMBrown]

You said and I quote "There is no such thing as same sex marriage just as there is no such thing as mailbox marriage or heterosexual marriage ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman." I followed with, "you're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman; they are fundamentally different; placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it; a marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage; they already exist; you can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand; won't change the fact that they do in fact exist." You then responded with "I'm NOT wrong." Thus you indicated that you continue to insist that there is no such thing as the phrase "homosexual marriage." Yet this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about "heterosexual marriages" we are talking about "homosexual marriages." I argued that a "heterosexual marriages" are not "homosexual marriages." And in response you said no it is the same. In fact you just followed up by saying you don't agree with the statement that a marriage between two people of the same sex is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways is a "heterosexual marriage" the same as a "homosexual marriage" or not? You can't just whisk homosexual marriages out of existence they already exist.

No, they don't exist because that isn't marriage. The word marriage doesn't have to be qualified, it stands alone as what it is, the union of a man and woman. There is no need for a modifier. You do not go get a "heterosexual marriage" license. I didn't claim there was no such thing as the phrase... we can put together all sorts of phrases that don't define something that exists in reality.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways...

I've read my posts several times and I don't see where I have been inconsistent. There is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" or "homosexual marriage" ...there is only one marriage, the union of a man and woman. Whether they are homo or hetero is academic. Marriage is not defined by sexuality and is not allowed or disallowed because of it.

Aside from the gay couple who I get my civil unions viewpoint from, I also know a homosexual man and homosexual woman who are married to each other. They both do their own thing, I don't have a problem with it, what happens in their bedroom is not my business. Their marriage is legitimate because it's a man and woman of legal age who consent and are not related.

You are the one trying to redefine terms. You are the one trying to define the term "homosexual marriage" as that which does not exist. However, one merely has to look at the following legal reference site to clearly see that your definition of homosexual marriages as being that which does not exist, is at best some sort of emotional outburst on your part.

Same-Sex Marriage Law Legal Definition

Same-sex marriage is also known as gay marriage or a homosexual marriage. This kind of marriage is a ceremonial union of two people of the same sex; a marriage or marriage-like relationship between two women or two men. The United States government and most other American states do not recognize such marriages, even if legally contracted. Therefore, couples do not acquire the legal status of spouses, yet they have successfully challenged the laws against same-sex marriage.

Thus, you are wrong. They do exist. However, they are not yet "recognized" as valid. This is not a subtle difference.

 

[Boss]

Now you are running to court cases to support your false incarnation of marriage. Courts once determined slaves were property, so courts are not always right. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, no sexuality is involved. You are the one who wants to change the criteria, and you want to use the power of government to do so. I refuse to accept that, I will fight against it, even if I have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

So... you can have that fight to the death, OR... you can sensibly get on board with my idea for civil unions reforms which resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I predict you will choose to have the fight because this isn't about you caring for gay couples, it's about pushing the issue and using it to politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now you are running to court cases to support your false incarnation of marriage. Courts once determined slaves were property, so courts are not always right. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, no sexuality is involved. You are the one who wants to change the criteria, and you want to use the power of government to do so. I refuse to accept that, I will fight against it, even if I have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

So... you can have that fight to the death, OR... you can sensibly get on board with my idea for civil unions reforms which resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I predict you will choose to have the fight because this isn't about you caring for gay couples, it's about pushing the issue and using it to politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric.

They were property. So the courts were right. Your argument is a moral one, not a factual one.

Yes, marriage is the union of a man and woman. Your are wrong, sexuality is involved.

I have not changed any criteria. You are making that up.

I never said that I personally want to use the power of government to do so. You are also making that up. My desired solution to this mess has not been discussed in this thread.

You say, you refuse to accept someone using the power of government to change marriage criteria, you say you will fight against it, even if you have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it. Ok, are you saying you are currently a member of the US Congress? Irregardless, good luck with that, you may have had a chance a decade back but it's less likely now.

As per your view that civil unions reform would resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I don't think you have been listening. We already have civil unions, the issue is not one of civil unions the issue is discrimination in marriage laws, not civil contracts.

As per your prediction that I will choose to fight your view because you believe I don't care for gay couples but would rather push issues that politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric, ... Nonsense. I have a gay brother in law, he's been with his partner for 25years. He lives in Florida, where it's not legal. I'd like to see them be treated as equals vs. being treated as sub-human as the marriage laws currently do. I'm not democrat or republican. Though I would argue that it is republicans like you that did push me out of the republican party.

 

[Boss]

Now you are running to court cases to support your false incarnation of marriage. Courts once determined slaves were property, so courts are not always right. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, no sexuality is involved. You are the one who wants to change the criteria, and you want to use the power of government to do so. I refuse to accept that, I will fight against it, even if I have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

So... you can have that fight to the death, OR... you can sensibly get on board with my idea for civil unions reforms which resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I predict you will choose to have the fight because this isn't about you caring for gay couples, it's about pushing the issue and using it to politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric.

They were property. So the courts were right. Your argument is a moral one, not a factual one.

No, the courts were wrong, slaves were not property, they were human beings. The courts were wrong and the laws the courts upheld were wrong. My argument is moral and factual.

Yes, marriage is the union of a man and woman. Your are wrong, sexuality is involved.

No it's not. If you can show me one state where the marriage licenses are issued on the basis of sexuality, I will stand opposed to it. You know as well as I, that is not the case. Why you want to stubbornly insist this, is beyond me.

I have not changed any criteria. You are making that up.

Well, yes... you ARE trying to change the criteria of what is marriage. Currently, it is the union of a man and woman. You want to make it the union of two people who have the same gender. Again, why are you arguing this?

I never said that I personally want to use the power of government to do so. You are also making that up. My desired solution to this mess has not been discussed in this thread.

Well that's exactly what you want to do. If you support "same sex marriage" it means you support the government establishing laws which allow for same sex couples to be married. Why are you being so silly here?

You say, you refuse to accept someone using the power of government to change marriage criteria, you say you will fight against it, even if you have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it. Ok, are you saying you are currently a member of the US Congress? Irregardless, good luck with that, you may have had a chance a decade back but it's less likely now.

I don't need luck. About 70% of the people don't want gay marriage. Force this on them at the Federal level and see what happens next. You want the fight, you'll get the damn fight.

As per your view that civil unions reform would resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I don't think you have been listening. We already have civil unions, the issue is not one of civil unions the issue is discrimination in marriage laws, not civil contracts.

No, we don't already have comprehensive civil union reforms that remove governments from the business of issuing marriage licenses, if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no discrimination in marriage laws, you are trying to claim a fundamental aspect of marriage criteria is discrimination, and it's not. Marriage is not defined by sexuality. It is not being disallowed to gay people or any other group. Are we also discriminating against pedophiles? What about brothers and sisters who love each other? No... because the law applies to everyone equally. I am heterosexual, I can't marry someone of the same sex. It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

As per your prediction that I will choose to fight your view because you believe I don't care for gay couples but would rather push issues that politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric, ... Nonsense. I have a gay brother in law, he's been with his partner for 25years. He lives in Florida, where it's not legal. I'd like to see them be treated as equals vs. being treated as sub-human as the marriage laws currently do. I'm not democrat or republican. Though I would argue that it is republicans like you that did push me out of the republican party.

Again, your brother in law would be treated as an equal just as he is now, only he would be able to get a civil union partnership with his mate and obtain benefits as if he were married. You don't want that, you'd rather push this stupid "gay marriage" crap because you enjoy demonizing the right, calling them homophobes and bigots, and ginning up emotive controversey over the issue itself. That's more important to you than working together to resolve the issue.

And I wish you'd stop lying about being conservative and republican. I've known you for a while on this and another board, and you have NEVER been remotely close to either. You're a liberal pissweasel who is lying through your teeth in order to try and appear objective. You're far too much of a dumbass illiterate to pull that off.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now you are running to court cases to support your false incarnation of marriage. Courts once determined slaves were property, so courts are not always right. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, no sexuality is involved. You are the one who wants to change the criteria, and you want to use the power of government to do so. I refuse to accept that, I will fight against it, even if I have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

So... you can have that fight to the death, OR... you can sensibly get on board with my idea for civil unions reforms which resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I predict you will choose to have the fight because this isn't about you caring for gay couples, it's about pushing the issue and using it to politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric.

They were property. So the courts were right. Your argument is a moral one, not a factual one.

No, the courts were wrong, slaves were not property, they were human beings. The courts were wrong and the laws the courts upheld were wrong. My argument is moral and factual.

Yes, marriage is the union of a man and woman. Your are wrong, sexuality is involved.

No it's not. If you can show me one state where the marriage licenses are issued on the basis of sexuality, I will stand opposed to it. You know as well as I, that is not the case. Why you want to stubbornly insist this, is beyond me.

I have not changed any criteria. You are making that up.

Well, yes... you ARE trying to change the criteria of what is marriage. Currently, it is the union of a man and woman. You want to make it the union of two people who have the same gender. Again, why are you arguing this?

I never said that I personally want to use the power of government to do so. You are also making that up. My desired solution to this mess has not been discussed in this thread.

Well that's exactly what you want to do. If you support "same sex marriage" it means you support the government establishing laws which allow for same sex couples to be married. Why are you being so silly here?

You say, you refuse to accept someone using the power of government to change marriage criteria, you say you will fight against it, even if you have to vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent it. Ok, are you saying you are currently a member of the US Congress? Irregardless, good luck with that, you may have had a chance a decade back but it's less likely now.

I don't need luck. About 70% of the people don't want gay marriage. Force this on them at the Federal level and see what happens next. You want the fight, you'll get the damn fight.

As per your view that civil unions reform would resolve the issue to the basic satisfaction of all. I don't think you have been listening. We already have civil unions, the issue is not one of civil unions the issue is discrimination in marriage laws, not civil contracts.

No, we don't already have comprehensive civil union reforms that remove governments from the business of issuing marriage licenses, if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no discrimination in marriage laws, you are trying to claim a fundamental aspect of marriage criteria is discrimination, and it's not. Marriage is not defined by sexuality. It is not being disallowed to gay people or any other group. Are we also discriminating against pedophiles? What about brothers and sisters who love each other? No... because the law applies to everyone equally. I am heterosexual, I can't marry someone of the same sex. It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

As per your prediction that I will choose to fight your view because you believe I don't care for gay couples but would rather push issues that politically divide people and win elections with emotionally-charged rhetoric, ... Nonsense. I have a gay brother in law, he's been with his partner for 25years. He lives in Florida, where it's not legal. I'd like to see them be treated as equals vs. being treated as sub-human as the marriage laws currently do. I'm not democrat or republican. Though I would argue that it is republicans like you that did push me out of the republican party.

Again, your brother in law would be treated as an equal just as he is now, only he would be able to get a civil union partnership with his mate and obtain benefits as if he were married. You don't want that, you'd rather push this stupid "gay marriage" crap because you enjoy demonizing the right, calling them homophobes and bigots, and ginning up emotive controversey over the issue itself. That's more important to you than working together to resolve the issue.

And I wish you'd stop lying about being conservative and republican. I've known you for a while on this and another board, and you have NEVER been remotely close to either. You're a liberal pissweasel who is lying through your teeth in order to try and appear objective. You're far too much of a dumbass illiterate to pull that off.

No you are wrong. Slavery did exist. What makes you think slavery was always illegal and slaves never existed? Is English your second language?

Sexuality - a person's sexual orientation or preference.

First you say only men and women can get married, the sexual orientation we call heterosexual, then you say sexuality, a person's sexual orientation or preference, has nothing to do with it. This indicates that you are delusional or ignorant to the meaning of the word sexuality. You pick.

You say if I can show you one state where the marriage licenses are issued on the basis of sexuality, you will stand opposed to it. Hmm.. ok:

Here is a link from my state:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

Go forth and stand opposed to it.


You say again that I am trying to change the criteria of what is marriage. I say again, no I am not.

You say I want to make marriage the union of two people who have the same gender. I say again, no I don't.

You ask again why am I arguing this? I say again, I am not.

You say if I support same sex marriage it means I support the government establishing laws which allow for same sex couples to be married. That would be correct.

You ask why I'm being so silly here? I am not being silly.

You say 70% of the people don't want gay marriage. You are wrong:

You say:

No, we don't already have comprehensive civil union reforms that remove governments from the business of issuing marriage licenses, if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no discrimination in marriage laws, you are trying to claim a fundamental aspect of marriage criteria is discrimination, and it's not. Marriage is not defined by sexuality. It is not being disallowed to gay people or any other group. Are we also discriminating against pedophiles? What about brothers and sisters who love each other? No... because the law applies to everyone equally. I am heterosexual, I can't marry someone of the same sex. It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

Ending marriage licenses is a different topic, and does not touch the other 20k marriage laws in this country. Marriage law by definition is discrimination against singles, plural marriage, and same sex couples. Saying a gay person can get married by becoming heterosexual is equivalent to saying black people were not discriminated against because they could bleach their skin white. Sexual orientation is not the same as murder, rape, pedophilia, or incest. No harm comes from gays coupling. Both people in a gay relationship are consenting adults. Yes the law used to not allow women or blacks to vote. We call that discrimination.

You say

And I wish you'd stop lying about being conservative and republican. I've known you for a while on this and another board, and you have NEVER been remotely close to either. You're a liberal pissweasel who is lying through your teeth in order to try and appear objective. You're far too much of a dumbass illiterate to pull that off.

I'm a constitutional conservative always have been. Reagan was my favorite President. Switched from Republican to Libertarian when I gave up on the republican party picking moderate-socialists like McCain and Romney. I've only done a lot of posts on one board before, it was a hobby board with place called the basement, and I doubt seriously that you knew me there. I challenge you to post a quote of me stating my support for a socialist / liberal view point. My politics are based on the precept of liberty, in so far as that liberty is not used to cause harm to others, such as by taking liberty away from others.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Unless Theodore Roosevelt can be reincarnated, I'm not voting republican again.

 

[Boss]

No you are wrong. Slavery did exist. What makes you think slavery was always illegal and slaves never existed? Is English your second language?

Where the hell did I say slavery didn't exist? It certainly existed and the courts upheld it. Were they RIGHT or WRONG? I think most people who aren't retarded idiots believe they were WRONG! Which WAS my point.... Courts are not always RIGHT!

Sexuality - a person's sexual orientation or preference.

First you say only men and women can get married, the sexual orientation we call heterosexual, then you say sexuality, a person's sexual orientation or preference, has nothing to do with it. This indicates that you are delusional or ignorant to the meaning of the word sexuality. You pick.

You're having a really difficult time with what I actually say and what your illiterate shallow mind must be telling you I say. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, without regard for any sexuality. They can be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, doesn't matter. Nothing to do with it. They have to be a man and woman, they have to be of legal age, they have to consent, they have to not be related, they have to be living, they can't already be married to someone, they have to pay for a license. It's not an inherent right, it never has been.

You say if I can show you one state where the marriage licenses are issued on the basis of sexuality, you will stand opposed to it. Hmm.. ok:

Here is a link from my state:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

Okay... so where is the part about homosexuals can't marry or only heterosexuals can? I'm not seeing that in what you posted, only the criteria of being a man and woman. Not a thing with regard to what their sexuality is.

Go forth and stand opposed to it.

If it discriminated on the basis of sexuality, I certainly would. It doesn't.

You say again that I am trying to change the criteria of what is marriage. I say again, no I am not.

Yes, if you want to modify marriage to include same sex unions, you ARE!

You say I want to make marriage the union of two people who have the same gender. I say again, no I am not.

You ask again why am I arguing this? I say again, I am not.

You say if I support same sex marriage it means I support the government establishing laws which allow for same sex couples to be married. That would be correct.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is this a byproduct of your illiteracy?

You ask why I'm being so silly here? I am not being silly.

Yes, you are being silly and ridiculous.

You say 70% of the people don't want gay marriage. You are wrong:

The only "POLL" that counts is the ballot box. In every state where "Gay Marriage" has been proposed on the ballot, it has failed. In some places, as many as 80% voted against it. Popular polls like this are very difficult to measure actual voting demographics because so many people out there don't participate in them. For instance, an online poll only charts people who have the Internet and who are willing to participate, which is mostly young, mostly liberal people.

But here again, what we see is, you are more interested in having the fight, rallying behind the issue itself, fomenting hate and divisiveness for political gain... not resolving the issue. If there are SO many people who would support "same sex marriage" out there, then my idea of comprehensive civil union reform and removing government from the marriage business, would be VERY popular.

You say:

No, we don't already have comprehensive civil union reforms that remove governments from the business of issuing marriage licenses, if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no discrimination in marriage laws, you are trying to claim a fundamental aspect of marriage criteria is discrimination, and it's not. Marriage is not defined by sexuality. It is not being disallowed to gay people or any other group. Are we also discriminating against pedophiles? What about brothers and sisters who love each other? No... because the law applies to everyone equally. I am heterosexual, I can't marry someone of the same sex. It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

Ending marriage licenses is a different topic, and does not touch the other 20k marriage laws in this country. Marriage law by definition is discrimination against singles, plural marriage, and same sex couples. Saying a gay person can get married by becoming heterosexual is equivalent to saying black people were not discriminated against because they could bleach their skin white. Sexual orientation is not the same as murder, rape, pedophilia, or incest. No harm comes from gays coupling. Both people in a gay relationship are consenting adults. Yes the law used to not allow women or blacks to vote. We call that discrimination.

I've not said a gay person can become married by becoming heterosexual. There is no law anywhere that prohibits a gay person from becoming married because they are homosexual.

Yes harm does come to societal structure of the family. That's why it's an issue. There is no law that prohibits homosexuals from being homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts. If there were such laws, I'd be opposed to them. If homosexuals were denied the right to obtain a license to marry someone of the opposite sex, I would be opposed to that. You keep presenting examples of where we DID discriminate against a particular group and didn't allow them to do something that others could do. That's not the case here. Heterosexuals can't marry same sex partners either. The law applies equally to all, you want to change the criteria for what marriage is to legitimize something as marriage that isn't marriage. The exact same argument could be used by any sexual deviant.

You say

And I wish you'd stop lying about being conservative and republican. I've known you for a while on this and another board, and you have NEVER been remotely close to either. You're a liberal pissweasel who is lying through your teeth in order to try and appear objective. You're far too much of a dumbass illiterate to pull that off.

I'm a constitutional conservative always have been. Reagan was my favorite President. Switched from Republican to Libertarian when I gave up on the republican party picking moderate-socialists like McCain and Romney. I've only done a lot of posts on one board before, it was a hobby board with place called the basement, and I doubt seriously that you knew me there. I challenge you to post a quote of me stating my support for a socialist / liberal view point. My politics are based on the precept of liberty, in so far as that liberty is not used to cause harm to others, such as by taking liberty away from others.

I've never seen you post anything that wasn't straight out of the left-wing looney bin. I don't think you are smart enough to be a Libertarian, to be honest. But let's entertain this thought about "liberty" for a moment...

Do you think we should have laws that restrict 15-year-olds from marriage? Are they not entitled to the same liberty as everyone else? How about 12-year-olds? Do you think we should have laws against public indecency? Why would you restrict their liberties when they aren't harming anyone? How about drunk drivers? You restrict their liberty on the basis of what you THINK might happen, but they may be very good drivers who never kill anyone. How about people who distribute kiddie porn? They aren't harming you in any way, why restrict their liberty? How about people who fight dogs or abuse animals... animals aren't people, why do we restrict their liberties? The legal drinking age is 21, shouldn't it be at least 18? We have soldiers going off to die in wars who can't legally purchase alcohol.

You see, we have LOTS of laws, and most of them specifically restrict someone's liberty to do whatever they want to do. We can't have a civil society where everyone gets to behave like it's Pleasure Island and just do whatever they please. That just turns into anarchy and pretty soon we're all living in cesspool that no one wants to live in. So we elect political leaders to represent us in government, to establish the laws we want to set the parameters and boundaries for our liberties. If you don't like something, you have the constitutional right to protest it, petition for a redress of your grievances, advocate for change. If enough people join you, this happens as matter of law. That's how the process works. You seem to want some judge or court to rule upon high instead. Well, if a court can deem "same sex marriage" law of the land, it can also deem "traditional marriage" law of the land, or it can suspend things like "legal consent" and "age of accountability" to accommodate some special interest who thinks they have a right.

 

[RKMBrown]

No you are wrong. Slavery did exist. What makes you think slavery was always illegal and slaves never existed? Is English your second language?

Where the hell did I say slavery didn't exist? You said and I quote, "the courts were wrong, slaves were not property." Now you say: It certainly existed and the courts upheld it. Were they RIGHT or WRONG? I think most people who aren't retarded idiots believe they were WRONG! Which WAS my point.... Courts are not always RIGHT! The courts are there to uphold the law, the law at the time was slavery is legal and slaves are property. What you mean to say is laws are not always good laws.

Sexuality - a person's sexual orientation or preference.

First you say only men and women can get married, the sexual orientation we call heterosexual, then you say sexuality, a person's sexual orientation or preference, has nothing to do with it. This indicates that you are delusional or ignorant to the meaning of the word sexuality. You pick.

You're having a really difficult time with what I actually say and what your illiterate shallow mind must be telling you I say. I'm using the definition of sexuality, I even posted it for you. What definition of sexuality are you using?

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, without regard for any sexuality. No you don't get to define the term marriage any more than I do, show me a link to a reference that defines marriage as a union without regard for any sexuality. If it was without regard for any sexuality then by definition it would not be man and woman only. Again you appear to not understand the meanings of words.

They can be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, doesn't matter. Nothing to do with it. They have to be a man and woman, they have to be of legal age, they have to consent, they have to not be related, they have to be living, they can't already be married to someone, they have to pay for a license. It's not an inherent right, it never has been. The right to marry has always been an inherent right, and it still is. You're not even on the correct planet with that statement.

You say if I can show you one state where the marriage licenses are issued on the basis of sexuality, you will stand opposed to it. Hmm.. ok:

Here is a link from my state:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

Okay... so where is the part about homosexuals can't marry or only heterosexuals can? I'm not seeing that in what you posted, only the criteria of being a man and woman. Not a thing with regard to what their sexuality is. Are you mentally handicapped? Yes or No?

Go forth and stand opposed to it.

If it discriminated on the basis of sexuality, I certainly would. It doesn't. Again, what planet are you on? What definition of sexuality are you basing your whacked out views on?

You say again that I am trying to change the criteria of what is marriage. I say again, no I am not.

Yes, if you want to modify marriage to include same sex unions, you ARE! Why would I want to modify marriage? That's dumb.

You say I want to make marriage the union of two people who have the same gender. I say again, no I am not.

You ask again why am I arguing this? I say again, I am not.

You say if I support same sex marriage it means I support the government establishing laws which allow for same sex couples to be married. That would be correct.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is this a byproduct of your illiteracy? Nah you just have a low IQ. I'm not contradicting myself one bit.

You ask why I'm being so silly here? I am not being silly.

Yes, you are being silly and ridiculous. Nope.

You say 70% of the people don't want gay marriage. You are wrong:

The only "POLL" that counts is the ballot box. In every state where "Gay Marriage" has been proposed on the ballot, it has failed. In some places, as many as 80% voted against it. Popular polls like this are very difficult to measure actual voting demographics because so many people out there don't participate in them. For instance, an online poll only charts people who have the Internet and who are willing to participate, which is mostly young, mostly liberal people.

But here again, what we see is, you are more interested in having the fight, rallying behind the issue itself, fomenting hate and divisiveness for political gain... not resolving the issue. If there are SO many people who would support "same sex marriage" out there, then my idea of comprehensive civil union reform and removing government from the marriage business, would be VERY popular.

Nope. I'm more interested in solving the issue.

You say:

No, we don't already have comprehensive civil union reforms that remove governments from the business of issuing marriage licenses, if we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no discrimination in marriage laws, you are trying to claim a fundamental aspect of marriage criteria is discrimination, and it's not. Marriage is not defined by sexuality. It is not being disallowed to gay people or any other group. Are we also discriminating against pedophiles? What about brothers and sisters who love each other? No... because the law applies to everyone equally. I am heterosexual, I can't marry someone of the same sex. It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

Ending marriage licenses is a different topic, and does not touch the other 20k marriage laws in this country. Marriage law by definition is discrimination against singles, plural marriage, and same sex couples. Saying a gay person can get married by becoming heterosexual is equivalent to saying black people were not discriminated against because they could bleach their skin white. Sexual orientation is not the same as murder, rape, pedophilia, or incest. No harm comes from gays coupling. Both people in a gay relationship are consenting adults. Yes the law used to not allow women or blacks to vote. We call that discrimination.

I've not said a gay person can become married by becoming heterosexual. Yes you did. There is no law anywhere that prohibits a gay person from becoming married because they are homosexual. Yes there is, I already cited one.

Yes harm does come to societal structure of the family. That's why it's an issue. There is no law that prohibits homosexuals from being homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts. If there were such laws, I'd be opposed to them. If homosexuals were denied the right to obtain a license to marry someone of the opposite sex, I would be opposed to that. You keep presenting examples of where we DID discriminate against a particular group and didn't allow them to do something that others could do. That's not the case here. Heterosexuals can't marry same sex partners either. The law applies equally to all, you want to change the criteria for what marriage is to legitimize something as marriage that isn't marriage. The exact same argument could be used by any sexual deviant.

Huh? Where is the law that forces you to be married to have children?

You say

And I wish you'd stop lying about being conservative and republican. I've known you for a while on this and another board, and you have NEVER been remotely close to either. You're a liberal pissweasel who is lying through your teeth in order to try and appear objective. You're far too much of a dumbass illiterate to pull that off.

I'm a constitutional conservative always have been. Reagan was my favorite President. Switched from Republican to Libertarian when I gave up on the republican party picking moderate-socialists like McCain and Romney. I've only done a lot of posts on one board before, it was a hobby board with place called the basement, and I doubt seriously that you knew me there. I challenge you to post a quote of me stating my support for a socialist / liberal view point. My politics are based on the precept of liberty, in so far as that liberty is not used to cause harm to others, such as by taking liberty away from others.

I've never seen you post anything that wasn't straight out of the left-wing looney bin. I don't think you are smart enough to be a Libertarian, to be honest. How smart do I have to be to be a Libertarian? And how do you measure "smart?"

But let's entertain this thought about "liberty" for a moment...

Do you think we should have laws that restrict 15-year-olds from marriage? Yes.

Are they not entitled to the same liberty as everyone else? No.

How about 12-year-olds? Already answered.

Do you think we should have laws against public indecency? Yes.

Why would you restrict their liberties when they aren't harming anyone? Who are you referring to?

How about drunk drivers? Should be restricted.

You restrict their liberty on the basis of what you THINK might happen, but they may be very good drivers who never kill anyone. Wrong, drunk drivers are not very good drivers.


How about people who distribute kiddie porn? They should be hung.

They aren't harming you in any way, why restrict their liberty? Wrong, they are causing harm to those children. Please tell me you are not trying to defend kiddie pron.

How about people who fight dogs or abuse animals... animals aren't people, why do we restrict their liberties? We restrict their liberties because society has deemed it morally repugnant.

The legal drinking age is 21, shouldn't it be at least 18? Yes.

We have soldiers going off to die in wars who can't legally purchase alcohol. Already answered.

You see, we have LOTS of laws, and most of them specifically restrict someone's liberty to do whatever they want to do. We can't have a civil society where everyone gets to behave like it's Pleasure Island and just do whatever they please. That just turns into anarchy and pretty soon we're all living in cesspool that no one wants to live in. So we elect political leaders to represent us in government, to establish the laws we want to set the parameters and boundaries for our liberties. If you don't like something, you have the constitutional right to protest it, petition for a redress of your grievances, advocate for change. If enough people join you, this happens as matter of law. That's how the process works. Correct.

You seem to want some judge or court to rule upon high instead. No I never said that.

Well, if a court can deem "same sex marriage" law of the land, it can also deem "traditional marriage" law of the land, or it can suspend things like "legal consent" and "age of accountability" to accommodate some special interest who thinks they have a right. Correct.

blue