- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Typical liberal, always with the personal attacks.
Alright, then? :shrug:
Typical liberal, always with the personal attacks.
Don't get mad at me just because liberalism makes absolute zero sense.Suuuuuuure you aren't.
Don't get mad at me just because both you and I keep proving my point.
You say your daughter is a lesbian and she wants to marry her girlfriend. You support her decision. The legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In essence, it's the law of the land. Your daughter is ignoring the law of the land. You support your faughter, which means that if you were gay, being the politically charged person that you are, you would also want to marry, therefore, you would also be ignoring the law of the land.You say I ignore the Laws of this Land?
Prove it.
That's a question for your parole officer, not me.What Laws have I broken?
I don't have the proof you're looking for, but should you ever decide to repent and find the everlasting God, I'll be more than happy to assist you in your endeavors.Prove your God even exists to even provide laws.
Is your diety a homosexual? Just wondering....I obey MY Deity's Laws.
Oh, I'm sure you follow YOUR diety's laws to the letter. I have no doubt of that.How about prove I don't do that either,hmmmm?
Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.I don't give crap about YOUR deity or his overly long boring book.
YOUR Deity has no power over me.
And I'm saying, right now, that you don't know the first thing about God. But I'm willing to bet that you're into all things carnal & sensual.Like I've said before,Christianity and Christians do not own God,they do not own Marriage,the have no entitlement to rule others simply because they are Christians,they don't have the right to ram their beliefs down everone eles throats.they don't own Love,and they don't own Peace.
^^that.I support it because I, unlike many people in this nation, don't believe that I have a right to dictate how other consenting adults run their lives.
Why should government be allowed to define marriage at all? Marriage should be defined by individuals in society, not by some arbitrary law of the state.Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.
Don't get mad at me just because liberalism makes absolute zero sense.
You say your daughter is a lesbian and she wants to marry her girlfriend. You support her decision. The legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In essence, it's the law of the land. Your daughter is ignoring the law of the land. You support your faughter, which means that if you were gay, being the politically charged person that you are, you would also want to marry, therefore, you would also be ignoring the law of the land.
I don't have a parole officer.I never been to prison.That's a question for your parole officer, not me.
You are such a egomaniac.I don't have the proof you're looking for, but should you ever decide to repent and find the everlasting God, I'll be more than happy to assist you in your endeavors.
Why do you ask?Do you have latent homosexual tendencies yourself?Is your diety a homosexual? Just wondering....
And that's why I have a wonderful wife,three wonderful daughters,wonderful grandchildrem,ownership of a growing company,a big house,a nice car,good health,and a big fat bank account.Oh, I'm sure you follow YOUR diety's laws to the letter. I have no doubt of that.
And little by little,more and more people will do the right thing and expand that definition.Future generations will look at you and say,"what a hate filled bigot".You will be seen as the bad guy,not me.Yeah, I don't give a crap about secular values, either. That's why I'm encouraging the rest of the 50 states to stay true to the legal definition of marriage.
Ladies and gentleman,we know have gotten to the real PETER GRIMM. Your Lord,Master,Saviour.Bow down to him and let him do the thinking for you.He will tell you what you need to know about GOD.And I'm saying, right now, that you don't know the first thing about God. But I'm willing to bet that you're into all things carnal & sensual.
I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.And I a saying ,right now that you don't know the first thing about God
Would appreciate some honest input.
And those against interracial marriage argued that God and the Bible condemned the marriage of blacks and whites. History repeats itself I guess.I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.
I know a few things about God, and one of them is that He has given us commandments. It is our choice to accept them or reject them, but in the end, we will be judged according to our choices. That's really all I should be saying. At this point I'm going to do us both a favor, and terminate this aimless banter before one of us gets tagged.
its so said that in 2012, soon to be 2013, theres people that still want to actually support discrimination and fight against equal rights. As an american how hypocritical can one be.
tell that to the people in this thread who support equal rights for a gay couple but not for an incestuous couple or polygamist group.
( I await the obligatory squeals of " but...but....but...but....that's different" )
equal rights have to apply equally to everyone or they are not really equal
Incest does not equate with gay. Don't be a fool.
As for polygamy..... I don't care about that either. I see know reason why multiple consenting adults can't marry each other if that's what they chose to do. It's none of my business.
If businesses can be organized around a group of people, why can't marriages?
if people are stupid enough to want to get into that kind of situation, I say fine. Let them.
It doesn't hurt or effect me in the least.
There is an EXTREMELY valid scientific and sociological reason for not supporting incest.
Stop being a knee-jerk idiot and reaching for the most obnoxious scenarios to try to support your pathetic position on equality.
At what point will you also throw bestiality into the discussion? You might as well go whole-hog. No sense holding back.
Obviously it's only a matter of time.....
1.)tell that to the people in this thread who support equal rights for a gay couple but not for an incestuous couple or polygamist group.
( I await the obligatory squeals of " but...but....but...but....that's different" )
equal rights have to apply equally to everyone or they are not really equal
animals can't give consent. so your position on equality hinges on your own personal feelings about the group of people involved...got it and thanks for clearing up your hypocrisy.
you people always want to squeal about the reproductive issue on incest, but then piss yourselves and cry that it is not an issue for gays. incest couples could have kids the same way gay couples do and that would eliminate your "extremely" valid scientific EXCUSE for denying them the same equal right you so loudly bleat for gays.
hypocrisy....what a concept
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.animals can't give consent. so your position on equality hinges on your own personal feelings about the group of people involved...got it and thanks for clearing up your hypocrisy.
you people always want to squeal about the reproductive issue on incest, but then piss yourselves and cry that it is not an issue for gays. incest couples could have kids the same way gay couples do and that would eliminate your "extremely" valid scientific EXCUSE for denying them the same equal right you so loudly bleat for gays.
hypocrisy....what a concept
There is an EXTREMELY valid scientific and sociological reason for not supporting incest.
Stop being a knee-jerk idiot and reaching for the most obnoxious scenarios to try to support your pathetic position on equality.
At what point will you also throw bestiality into the discussion? You might as well go whole-hog. No sense holding back.
Obviously it's only a matter of time.....
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.
Bottom line is that government has no business gran special rights to married people but if it does it must do so equally, to straight, gay, incestuous and polygamous groups. This is about equal protection under the law.
I agree with Oscar. The same rationale that extends marriage to same sex couples implies that marriage should be extended to relatives and polygamous groups. This is simple logic, and dragonfly is a hypocrite.
Bottom line is that government has no business gran special rights to married people but if it does it must do so equally, to straight, gay, incestuous and polygamous groups. This is about equal protection under the law.
You have proven your ignorance in magnificent form. Thank you for that.
Now before you go on....perhaps you might want to go here and read around a bit.
you have proven you are a hypocrite.
These efforts overlook one key difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. One permits equality between two married spouses; the other does not. And that in turn means that allowing polygamy would violate not only the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the U.S. obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to “ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” So important is this right that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have condemned polygamy in no uncertain terms. It should be “definitely abolished,” the Human Rights Committee ruled, because it violates women’s dignity rights and is an “inadmissible discrimination” against them. Similarly, CEDAW notes that it “contravenes a woman’s right to equality with men” and has “such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents” that it should be prohibited.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against federal and state laws that give a wife fewer rights than a husband merely because of her sex, just as does a law permitting a husband to practice polygamy. Whether the law is so explicit that it makes the husband “head and master” of the home with the sole right to control property (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)) or denies a wife benefits awarded automatically to a husband, such as welfare benefits if the wife is unemployed (Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979)), housing and medical benefits for the wife’s spouse (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), child-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975)), or self-care benefits for a surviving spouse (Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), and Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company, 446 U.S. 142 (1980)), the Court has found violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Even when the rule discriminated against husbands, as in a state law requiring only husbands to pay alimony (Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)), the Court has required equality for husband and wife.
Should Polygamy Be Permitted in the United States? | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities