|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage. |
link please |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If people do not want to have children that does not mean you stop marriage. |
then why not? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Marriage is, as far as the State goes a way to ensure or facilitate offspring. That is the State interest in the institution of marriage. |
:lol:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!
:crazy::drool::freak: |
|
|
| jigzaw |
| Drudge must be sleeping in. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
then why not? |
Because the personal decisions made by some do not affect the State interest. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:lol:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!
:crazy::drool::freak: |
That is your response because you are clueless. As with almost everything else you comment on or post about.
:) |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Because the personal decisions made by some do not affect the State interest. |
Preventing gays from marrying has NOTHING to do with the "State interest".
Twisted fuck. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
That is your response because you are clueless. As with almost everything else you comment on or post about. |
:tears:
And yet you are my bitch. What's that say about you then?
:opps: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Preventing gays from marrying has NOTHING to do with the "State interest".
Twisted fuck. |
The question was in regard to the State in regard to marriage.
Simply because some married do not have children does not mean that the State must disregard their justification of marriage laws. Why they have marriage laws. They have them because it is a State Interest to create families who will create offspring. Outside of that there is no reason for States to have marriage laws at all. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Because the personal decisions made by some do not affect the State interest. |
Exactly. So why is gay marriage outlawed? :bigthink: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Shit
Exactly. So why is gay marriage outlawed? :bigthink: |
It only recently has been outlawed in some States. Before that it was not an issue and the laws just presumed a man and woman would be the ones getting married. There was no law that said gays could not get married. Now there is, both by the legislatures and in some State Constitutions.
For hundreds of years marriage has been defined as between a Man and a Woman, it was not an issue.
It is not up to the Court to decide what is an issue for the State legislatures or citizens via a Constitutional amendment. The legislature determines what is in the State interest and makes laws accordingly. In the case of marriage the State interest is procreation. That is the justification for marriage laws. Without that then why have marriage laws? What business is it of a State? If the State interest is not there than the law is not there. The State interest is procreation. Impossible for gay couples. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Without that then why have marriage laws? What business is it of a State? If the State interest is not there than the law is not there. The State interest is procreation. Impossible for gay couples. |
That is some of the most twisted, mutated "lojik" I have ever heard. The ravings of a madman.
What isn't complete nonsense is both hypocritical AND contradictory. :drool:
The argument was birthed in right-wing legislation/religious pandering.
Its too far gone and IRRATIONAL even for the Right-Wing Authoritarian, and Bush Cabal apologist/servant, Justice Antonin Scalia:
Supreme Court Justice Scalia's hypothetical argument of the irrelevance of procreation:
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Lawrence v. Texas, struck down a Texas state law that criminalized sodomy. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia posed a question about same-sex marriage, which he answers with a rejection of any role for the issue of procreation in same-sex marriage decisions. He comments:
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purpose of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring", ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution", ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court."
"Principle and logic have nothing to do with" StumpyNumbNutz and his "arguments".
:giggle:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Because the personal decisions made by some do not affect the State interest. |
so why discriminate vs gays? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Outside of that there is no reason for States to have marriage laws at all. |
except that PEOPLE demand them for their interest.
 |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
That is some of the most twisted, mutated "lojik" I have ever heard. The ravings of a madman.
What isn't complete nonsense is both hypocritical AND contradictory. :drool:
The argument was birthed in right-wing legislation/religious pandering.
Its too far gone and IRRATIONAL even for the Right-Wing Authoritarian, and Bush Cabal apologist/servant, Justice Antonin Scalia:
Supreme Court Justice Scalia's hypothetical argument of the irrelevance of procreation:
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Lawrence v. Texas, struck down a Texas state law that criminalized sodomy. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia posed a question about same-sex marriage, which he answers with a rejection of any role for the issue of procreation in same-sex marriage decisions. He comments:
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purpose of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring", ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution", ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court."
"Principle and logic have nothing to do with" StumpyNumbNutz and his "arguments".
:giggle:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
That means nothing. There is plenty of case law that shows what the State interest is. Despite what you believe Alito is saying. Just because some Man and Woman marriages do not end up procreating that does not mean that the State interest melts away. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That means nothing. There is plenty of case law that shows what the State interest is. |
so the interest of the citizens is not the interest of the state. fascinating. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
This could have been a good thread if fdumbya and dingmen didn't drool all over it. :rolleyes:
When you two assholes post something interesting and raise your level of discourse to something approaching Stonewall's you'd be worth something to this board.
Right now, all you amount to is a couple of yipping Chihuahua bitches, barking at the mailman, day after day.
It got old a long time ago asswipes. :rolleyes:
Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of any discussion board. If Stonewall wasn't here, you wouldn't even have your little "act" :rolleyes:
I took you two stupid fucks off ignore and I still see the same tired shit you've been regurgitating since you came aboard. Nothing of substance, just endless, bleating, whining from a couple of cannabis-addled, self-inflated assholes.
Grow the fuck up... |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
so the interest of the citizens is not the interest of the state. fascinating. |
Sure it is. Citizens elect the legislatures. Legislatures decide these things.
Citizens also decide it via a Constitutional Amendment in the States. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
That means nothing. There is plenty of case law that shows what the State interest is. |
You mean what some bigoted fucktards' interpretations are of what "the State interest is".
You FAIL, DUPE.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Despite what you believe Alito is saying. |
Yeah, cuz there's doubt. Can you read?!?!
:drool::crazy:
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Just because some Man and Woman marriages do not end up procreating that does not mean that the State interest melts away. |
Your whacked out delusional INTERPRETATION of "State interest" melts away because it is complete and utter fantastical nonsense, dreamed up from diseased minds.
Bigot. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
This could have been a good thread if fdumbya and dingmen didn't drool all over it. :rolleyes:
When you two assholes post something interesting and raise your level of discourse to something approaching Stonewall's you'd be worth something to this board.
Right now, all you amount to is a couple of yipping Chihuahua bitches, barking at the mailman, day after day.
It got old a long time ago asswipes. :rolleyes:
Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of any discussion board. If Stonewall wasn't here, you wouldn't even have your little "act" :rolleyes:
I took you two stupid fucks off ignore and I still see the same tired shit you've been regurgitating since you came aboard. Nothing of substance, just endless, bleating, whining from a couple of cannabis-addled, self-inflated assholes.
Grow the fuck up... |
Cry more, Cunt.
:tears: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Scalia would wonder why Stumpedwall and his Stupid Apprentice entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court."
I'd answer: "Because they are stupid as shit, Antonin." |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Scalia would wonder why Stumpedwall and his Stupid Apprentice entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court."
I'd answer: "Because they are stupid as shit, Antonin." |
First of all Lawrence v Texas was not about gay marriage. You quote a part of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence.
The issue we are discussing is the State interest in marriage laws. As they are now. Not Gay Marriage.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia posed a question about same-sex marriage, which he answers with a rejection of any role for the issue of procreation in same-sex marriage decisions.
He is discussing same sex marriage, not the marriage laws as they exist. Right now the marriage laws exist because of the State interest in procreation. Of course procreation would have to be rejected with a Gay Marriage. It being impossible that same sex marriages will produce offspring.
I agree with Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence.
The Majority in it's decision made clear that gay marriage was not affected by it's ruling in Lawrence. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
First of all Lawrence v Texas was not about gay marriage. You quote a part of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. |
Where he states his opinion on the relevance/validity of "procreation".
Your stance is without principle or logic according to him.
Sorry.
:hw: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Sure it is. Citizens elect the legislatures. Legislatures decide these things.
Citizens also decide it via a Constitutional Amendment in the States. |
except when they are driven by needless fear to attack themselves and the court must step in.
your state at work |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Right now the marriage laws exist because of the State interest in procreation. |
not anymore :drool: |
|
|
| jigzaw |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
First of all Lawrence v Texas was not about gay marriage. You quote a part of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence.
The issue we are discussing is the State interest in marriage laws. As they are now. Not Gay Marriage.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia posed a question about same-sex marriage, which he answers with a rejection of any role for the issue of procreation in same-sex marriage decisions.
He is discussing same sex marriage, not the marriage laws as they exist. Right now the marriage laws exist because of the State interest in procreation. Of course procreation would have to be rejected with a Gay Marriage. It being impossible that same sex marriages will produce offspring.
I agree with Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence.
The Majority in it's decision made clear that gay marriage was not affected by it's ruling in Lawrence. |
Procreation is not the reason gay marriage hasn't been allowed. If that were the case, infertile people, elderly people and people who simply know they don't want children would not be allowed to marry.
Gay marriage has not been allowed because of primitive superstitious fears. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
This could have been a good thread if fdumbya and dingmen didn't drool all over it. :rolleyes:
When you two assholes post something interesting and raise your level of discourse to something approaching Stonewall's you'd be worth something to this board.
Right now, all you amount to is a couple of yipping Chihuahua bitches, barking at the mailman, day after day.
It got old a long time ago asswipes. :rolleyes:
Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of any discussion board. If Stonewall wasn't here, you wouldn't even have your little "act" :rolleyes:
I took you two stupid fucks off ignore and I still see the same tired shit you've been regurgitating since you came aboard. Nothing of substance, just endless, bleating, whining from a couple of cannabis-addled, self-inflated assholes.
Grow the fuck up... |
keep it up, dickhead. I would be happy to wipe your ignorant ass all over this board again. I enjoy that shit. give me a reason :pray: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decision of this Court.
:drool:
but NC-Stupid still needs more :p |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Where he states his opinion on the relevance/validity of "procreation".
Your stance is without principle or logic according to him.
Sorry.
:hw: |
The Courts stance in Lawrence is what he was talking about and I agree with him.
If you have a problem with procreation being the State Interest in marriage laws, then cry somewhere else. It has nothing to do with me. I did not create the marriage laws. I did not come up with the State reasoning in their marriage laws. It has nothing to do with me.
I think that is a trend in your posts. You attack the messenger. That is why you fail to learn.
I would think your argument would be that procreation should not be the reasoning and here is why..., but no you attack me for simply telling you facts.
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/ml...a%20Article.pdf |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
Procreation is not the reason gay marriage hasn't been allowed. If that were the case, infertile people, elderly people and people who simply know they don't want children would not be allowed to marry.
Gay marriage has not been allowed because of primitive superstitious fears. |
Procreation is the State Interest in the marriage laws.
You could be right that procreation is not the main reason to be against gay marriage. However that has nothing to do with State Interest in the marriage laws as they have existed. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Courts stance in Lawrence is what he was talking about and I agree with him.
If you have a problem with procreation being the State Interest in marriage laws, then cry somewhere else. It has nothing to do with me. I did not create the marriage laws. I did not come up with the State reasoning in their marriage laws. It has nothing to do with me.
I think that is a trend in your posts. You attack the messenger. That is why you fail to learn.
I would think your argument would be that procreation should not be the reasoning and here is why..., but no you attack me for simply telling you facts.
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/ml...a%20Article.pdf |
I don't agree that the only interest that the state has in marriage laws is providing for procreation. Mechanisms for the sharing and distribution of common property are not nothing. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Courts stance in Lawrence is what he was talking about and I agree with him.
If you have a problem with procreation being the State Interest in marriage laws, then cry somewhere else. It has nothing to do with me. I did not create the marriage laws. I did not come up with the State reasoning in their marriage laws. It has nothing to do with me.
I think that is a trend in your posts. You attack the messenger. That is why you fail to learn.
I would think your argument would be that procreation should not be the reasoning and here is why..., but no you attack me for simply telling you facts.
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/ml...a%20Article.pdf |
Unconstitutional. Sorry.
Ask Antonin.
One day right-wing ideology will be completely wrung from our government.
:hw: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by skipdrums
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a binding contract between two adults. Why can't two adults of the same sex get married? What difference does sex make?
Same-sex marriage bans are by definition, DISCRIMINATORY. |
you brought up state interest in response to this post, stumpy.
why? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you brought up state interest in response to this post, stumpy.
why? |
A. deflection has become an involuntary response.
B. he was "stumped".
C. schizoid embolism.
D. All of the above.
:drool: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I don't agree that the only interest that the state has in marriage laws is providing for procreation. Mechanisms for the sharing and distribution of common property are not nothing. |
Those other issues grew out of the marriage.
If the State has no interest in procreation then the State should get out of the marriage business. Create something else. A system where you can pick anyone to have the rights now enjoyed by a "spouse". |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Those other issues grew out of the marriage.
If the State has no interest in procreation then the State should get out of the marriage business. Create something else. A system where you can pick anyone to have the rights now enjoyed by a "spouse". |
no thanks, but thanks for the dinosaur opinion :bigup:
I guess the US invented marriage and these issues just sprung up like weeds. Get a clue |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you brought up state interest in response to this post, stumpy.
why? |
Because the law was mentioned. The reason for the law... a contract. That is not the way it is. There is a reason, there is a State Interest. That interest is procreation. |
|
|
| chicagoirishtim |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
We should just put this to rest and issue a national ballot vote on this. I'm all for sticking to what the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE decide. |
I agree, we should do the same with the occupation of Iraq, we'll be out the day after the vote. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
no thanks, but thanks for the dinosaur opinion :bigup:
I guess the US invented marriage and these issues just sprung up like weeds. Get a clue |
Certainly without the marriage then these other issues would not exist. At least not in their current form of family law. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Because the law was mentioned. The reason for the law... a contract. That is not the way it is. There is a reason, there is a State Interest. That interest is procreation. |
the only reason for a law is state interest? I think that is false on its face |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Those other issues grew out of the marriage. |
:rolleyes:
Marriage came about because of issues of property/inheritance.
Procreation happens with or without marriage. Always has.
:secret:.....procreation is older than marriage.
:freak: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Certainly without the marriage then these other issues would not exist. |
:jj: :jj: :jj: :jj: :jj:
is it the blood tests or the piece of paper that give rise to these? :burst: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
That interest is procreation. |
Only in the most transparent of reich-wing circles....
:rolleyes:
Your slip is showing Stumpy....
________________________________________
"Let us cross over the river and corn-hole each other under the shade of the trees." Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Whackson...jerkin' it since 1869:jackoff::ass2mouth:69::slapcum::bruno::blow: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
the only reason for a law is state interest? I think that is false on its face |
I can't imagine why you would believe that. If a law is created it satisfies some State interest. Why would they create a law without a State Interest? It does not seem to make sense. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
I can't imagine why you would believe that. If a law is created it satisfies some State interest. Why would they create a law without a State Interest? It does not seem to make sense. |
:lol:
Crazier than a shit-house rat.
:crazy: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I can't imagine why you would believe that. If a law is created it satisfies some State interest. |
certainly not in an exclusive manner as a rule. this claim you cannot make. no one is saying that no state interest is served through marriage. in fact the institution of marriage serves the state for multiple reasons
:) |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:rolleyes:
Marriage came about because of issues of property/inheritance.
Procreation happens with or without marriage. Always has.
:secret:.....procreation is older than marriage.
:freak: |
I'm not so sure that marriage came about because of these other things. As you said these things would exist even without marriage. In our tradition, marriage is between a man and woman for the purpose of creating families.
Some want to change this to mean something else. I would not vote against Gay Marriage, I doubt. Humans only live once and they should be as happy as they can, if people of the same sex wish to get married, I don't really care. It will not effect me. I don't care about polygamy.
:) |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:lol:
Crazier than a shit-house rat.
:crazy: |
OK show me a law that has no State Interest.
Just one... |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
OK show me a law that has no State Interest. |
uh oh. embolism induced cell death triggered. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I'm not so sure that marriage came about because of these other things. As you said these things would exist even without marriage. In our tradition, marriage is between a man and woman for the purpose of creating families.
Some want to change this to mean something else. I would not vote against Gay Marriage, I doubt. Humans only live once and they should be as happy as they can, if people of the same sex wish to get married, I don't really care. It will not effect me. I don't care about polygamy.
:) |
crumbling mental infrastructure |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
uh oh. embolism induced cell death triggered. |
You get Busy too.
Find even ONE... |
|
|
| mingmen |
State Interest capitalized :drool:
 |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
You get Busy too.
Find even ONE... |
already addressed:
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I can't imagine why you would believe that. If a law is created it satisfies some State interest.
certainly not in an exclusive manner as a rule. this claim you cannot make. no one is saying that no state interest is served through marriage. in fact the institution of marriage serves the state for multiple reasons |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
already addressed:
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I can't imagine why you would believe that. If a law is created it satisfies some State interest.
certainly not in an exclusive manner as a rule. this claim you cannot make. no one is saying that no state interest is served through marriage. in fact the institution of marriage serves the state for multiple reasons |
As a rule yes. How could the State make a Law where no State interest is satisfied? What would be the reasoning of the law?
Find one law where there is no State interest.
The institution of marriage may serve other interests along with procreation. I imagine some States have additional reasons. Stability of creating families. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
As a rule yes. How could the State make a Law where no State interest is satisfied? What would be the reasoning of the law? |
real slow this time...
no...one...is...making...that...claim.
got it? :p
of course laws serve the state interest. you just cannot claim that they only serve the state's interest exclusively just because they are laws. :p
you can argue individually about laws whether this exclusivity is the case as you have so boringly done. unfortunately I think the consensus is that you fail
 |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Find one law where there is no State interest. |
what a pure and wonderful non sequitur you have created |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I agree, Islam is intolerant. |
Que cabron! Y tu tambien, Stoney!
:mb: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
real slow this time...
no...one...is...making...that...claim.
got it? :p
of course laws serve the state interest. you just cannot claim that they only serve the state's interest exclusively just because they are laws. :p
you can argue individually about laws whether this exclusivity is the case as you have so boringly done. unfortunately I think the consensus is that you fail
|
Perhaps you are not defining "State Interest" as I am. Here is the legal definition of State Interest
That should clear up the confusion. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Que cabron! Y tu tambien, Stoney!
:mb: |
If it's raining you should step inside...
:) |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Perhaps you are not defining "State Interest" as I am. Here is the legal definition of State Interest
That should clear up the confusion. |
State legislatures pass laws to address matters of public interest and concern. |
|
|
| mingmen |
| When a law affects a constitutionally protected interest |
|
|
| mingmen |
 |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Perhaps you are not defining "State Interest" as I am. Here is the legal definition of State Interest
That should clear up the confusion. |
"A broad term..."
/thread. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If it's raining you should step inside...
:) |
I just wanted to be ahead of the game in case the illegals take over SFN.
Bienvenidos, mi amigos!
:mb: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
keep it up, dickhead. I would be happy to wipe your ignorant ass all over this board again. I enjoy that shit. give me a reason :pray: |
You delusional little wimp. There was never a before so you'll never be able to do it again. :rolleyes:
Your responses, along with the broken logic you display in this thread expose just how weak and warped your little brain is.
Notice how many people defended you and your boyfriend?
Well, at least you have each other... :)
 |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You delusional little wimp. There was never a before so you'll never be able to do it again. :rolleyes:
Your responses, along with the broken logic you display in this thread expose just how weak and warped your little brain is.
Notice how many people defended you and your boyfriend?
Well, at least you have each other... :)
|
Ay caramba! Que malo!
:mb: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Ay caramba! Que malo!
:mb: |
Si, soy muy malo!
 |
|
|
| Colin Bowell |
Democracy wins when a court overturns the will of the people!
California voted to make marriage only between a man and a woman, but who cares because a court disagreed!
That's freedom!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! |
|
|
| jigzaw |
Quote: Originally posted by Colin Bowell
Democracy wins when a court overturns the will of the people!
California voted to make marriage only between a man and a woman, but who cares because a court disagreed!
That's freedom!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! |
Boo fucking hoo. That's why there's checks and balances and this is not a direct democracy. We have a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. The legislature (who are elected by the people) made gay marriage legal, but the executive vetoed it. Now the court did its job and reviewed a law put into effect by a popular vote (why do you think MOST laws are not done by popular vote? because the masses are generally dumb retards), and found it to be unconstitutional. That's what a Supreme Court does.
Disagree with the ruling if you can find where in the California State Constitution where it defines marriage as between only a man and a woman.
More importantly, I'd like to know whose rights are being infringed upon by this ruling? |
|
|
| Colin Bowell |
| I could care less if gays get married, I'm just down for the people being heard, and not so much a group of old judges. |
|
|
| jigzaw |
Quote: Originally posted by Colin Bowell
I could care less if gays get married, I'm just down for the people being heard, and not so much a group of old judges. |
That vote is 8 years old. If the people want to change the state constitution, they can do it. My bet is they won't. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You delusional little wimp. There was never a before so you'll never be able to do it again. :rolleyes:
Your responses, along with the broken logic you display in this thread expose just how weak and warped your little brain is. |
how so? let me have it, gramps :p |
|
|
| mingmen |
 |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Notice how many people defended you and your boyfriend? |
who needed defending?
do you have an opinion on this issue or you just want to hurl insults and post smilies?
sounds like spam to me you decrepit, ignorant, old fuck
:) |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
who needed defending?
do you have an opinion on this issue or you just want to hurl insults and post smilies?
sounds like spam to me you decrepit, ignorant, old fuck
:) |
You pathetic little hypocritical bitch...
You spam just about every thread you appear in with senseless inanities, vulgarities and endless, meaningless questions.
You don't add anything of value. You're like the guy that walks through the park, pisses on the rose bushes and leaves the trash from his Happy Meal all over the grass. :rolleyes:
Don't for a second start believing you make this forum better by being here. At the very least, Stonewall, whether you agree or disagree with him brings much interesting fodder to the board and is able to discuss those ideas at a level that invites more discussion instead of the shut-down methodology you and fdumbya are fond of. This is opinion board asshole. Discussion, the exchange of ideas and debate is what most people come here for, not your sad, tired, worn-out, worthless drivel.
All you and the other asshole are capable of is soiling things. Like a lot of underprivileged juveniles who are grasping for any sense of power and meaning in their lives, posting here is your version of shitting in the public pool.
You're an asshole dingmen, don't ever forget that. You're noting more and nothing less.
OK asshole, your turn. Post another picture of some drunk passed out. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
|
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stupid-Mark
You pathetic little hypocritical bitch...
You spam just about every thread you appear in with senseless inanities, vulgarities and endless, meaningless questions.
You don't add anything of value. You're like the guy that walks through the park, pisses on the rose bushes and leaves the trash from his Happy Meal all over the grass. :rolleyes:
Don't for a second start believing you make this forum better by being here. At the very least, Stonewall, whether you agree or disagree with him brings much interesting fodder to the board and is able to discuss those ideas at a level that invites more discussion instead of the shut-down methodology you and fdumbya are fond of. This is opinion board asshole. Discussion, the exchange of ideas and debate is what most people come here for, not your sad, tired, worn-out, worthless drivel.
All you and the other asshole are capable of is soiling things. Like a lot of underprivileged juveniles who are grasping for any sense of power and meaning in their lives, posting here is your version of shitting in the public pool.
You're an asshole dingmen, don't ever forget that. You're noting more and nothing less.
OK asshole, your turn. Post another picture of some drunk passed out. :rolleyes: |
:burst:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
:bigcry: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
When a law affects a constitutionally protected interest |
Gay Marriage Laws do not affect a constitutionally protected interest.
Perhaps, if people understood the constitution, the people who want gay marriage should try to convince the American people and go for an amendment.
The thing is the Left is so used to pushing it's agenda onto the American people through the Courts that they don't even debate the possibility of an amendment. The Courts are so much easier, it is so much easier to subvert the Democratic process via the Courts than to work within the Democratic process.
The Constitution? We'll just let the Courts rewrite that... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Gay Marriage Laws do not affect a constitutionally protected interest. |
Spoken like a true ignorant reich-winger and bigot.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Spoken like a true ignorant reich-winger and bigot.
:rolleyes: |
Where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:rolleyes: |
That's where I thought it was too... nowhere. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
| :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
You pathetic little hypocritical bitch...
You spam just about every thread you appear in with senseless inanities, vulgarities and endless, meaningless questions.
You don't add anything of value. You're like the guy that walks through the park, pisses on the rose bushes and leaves the trash from his Happy Meal all over the grass. :rolleyes:
Don't for a second start believing you make this forum better by being here. At the very least, Stonewall, whether you agree or disagree with him brings much interesting fodder to the board and is able to discuss those ideas at a level that invites more discussion instead of the shut-down methodology you and fdumbya are fond of. This is opinion board asshole. Discussion, the exchange of ideas and debate is what most people come here for, not your sad, tired, worn-out, worthless drivel.
All you and the other asshole are capable of is soiling things. Like a lot of underprivileged juveniles who are grasping for any sense of power and meaning in their lives, posting here is your version of shitting in the public pool.
You're an asshole dingmen, don't ever forget that. You're noting more and nothing less.
OK asshole, your turn. Post another picture of some drunk passed out. :rolleyes: |
if you cannot address the topic of the thread then don't post. is that clear enough for you, spammer? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Gay Marriage Laws do not affect a constitutionally protected interest. |
and neither do marriage laws. therefore we have no need to define "State Interest" do we? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
and neither do marriage laws. therefore we have no need to define "State Interest" do we? |
The State Interest is already defined. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The State Interest is already defined. |
and of no interest to us. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
if you cannot address the topic of the thread then don't post. is that clear enough for you, spammer? |
You would have a point if you had addressed the topic of this thread in anything resembling a reasonable, thoughtful manner, intended to further the debate. Instead you roll out your tired little act. For who exactly, I don't know because I don't see anyone except your boyfriend who enjoys your inanities and misguided, meaningless questions.
Your contributions are nothing more than trash strewn about this forum. You're nothing more than a yelping little bitch.
|
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
you have no idea how pussy hurt I am. look at the name calling I participate in while decrying the same thing in other people. I have nothing to say and it tears me up inside. maybe I should go hang out in the howard forum where the rest of the drunks congregate. I have no interest in discussing politics so I spam this forum instead of participating in discussion |
:bigclap: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stupid-Mark
Your contributions are nothing more than trash strewn about this forum. You're nothing more than a yelping little bitch. |
Dozens from this forum signed the petition to get ming out of TO. From both sides "of the aisle".
How many would sign one for you??? Zero-point-zero???
Even NCMoron calls you a hypocrite for being in here.
:giggle:
I guess I'd sign it....I like posting this too much:
NC-Stupid-Mark
Confused Member
Meltingdown |
|
|
| mingmen |
 :spam: |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
I don't see how this is really an issue at all? It's been said before and it's really this SIMPLE:
If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one.
The "protection of marriage" arguement is not only ridiculous but easily contridicted by the high divorce rate in America.
The only people that fear gays are in question over their own sexuality.
To all repussicans: Come out, come out where ever you are!!
:p :D :p |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
:pissr: :spam: :pissl: |
 |
|
|
| acefree |
i dont understand why anyone even cares if they get married.
i challenge scott depace and his anti-gay clan to take a lie detector test and say they dont enjoy lesbian porn. they are all liars.
and i think any male not into lesbians, is gay. hows that for irony. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
I don't see how this is really an issue at all? It's been said before and it's really this SIMPLE:
If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one.
The "protection of marriage" arguement is not only ridiculous but easily contridicted by the high divorce rate in America.
The only people that fear gays are in question over their own sexuality.
To all repussicans: Come out, come out where ever you are!!
:p :D :p |
There is a high divorce rate but when looking at the statistics marriages that don't end in divorce are only counted once and those people getting divorced are doing so again and again.
If the divorce rate is 40% that means 60% do not get divorced. The other 40% have more than one usually.
You put the blame on the Republicans but Democrats also have voted to ban Gay Marriage, even in States where a Dem won the election gay marriage still lost. So, it's more than just Republicans.
If gay marriage is OK, then why isn't incest or polygamy also OK? If people do not want to do those things, they don't have to. Just like you said with gay marriage. If you don't want to marry your sister, don't do it.
You wrote this:
The only people that fear gays are in question over their own sexuality.
Same with this, right?:
The only people who fear incest are in question over their own sexuality. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
There is a high divorce rate but when looking at the statistics marriages that don't end in divorce are only counted once and those people getting divorced are doing so again and again. |
Is each one not a marriage?
The "lojik" of a cockroach. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
You put the blame on the Republicans but Democrats also have voted to ban Gay Marriage, even in States where a Dem won the election gay marriage still lost. So, it's more than just Republicans. |
:drool:
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
If gay marriage is OK, then why isn't incest or polygamy also OK? If people do not want to do those things, they don't have to. Just like you said with gay marriage. If you don't want to marry your sister, don't do it.
You wrote this:
The only people that fear gays are in question over their own sexuality.
Same with this, right?:
The only people who fear incest are in question over their own sexuality. |
There is ample imperical evidence of the former (the GOP). None of the latter.
Jotos!!!
:giggle: |
|
|
| MLBoros72s |
My favorite anti-gay marriage line is: "What's next, will you let them marry a dog? A child?"
Yeah, marriage between two consensual adults and bestiality...same thing to these Christians. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
As an ordained minister, I look forward to performing same-sex ceremonies.
Monogomy should be rewarded for gay couples as it has been for straights.
:cool: |
|
|
|
|
|
