Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again...you really need to prove the point that that sexual behavior is anywhere in the same category as any of those other issues. That's where we have an issue. You are making the basic assumption that it is. But you haven't made that point.
I do not need to PROVE anything----SCOTUS jsut did and used the 14th amendment to prove it andmake it so..
Guess you have to prove otherwise..oh wait, that argument L O S T !!!!
I do not need to PROVE anything----SCOTUS jsut did and used the 14th amendment to prove it andmake it so..
Guess you have to prove otherwise..oh wait, that argument L O S T !!!!
Yes--they fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker. It was a horrendous decision--not just because of what it did, but that they completely overstepped their authority and they did it based on incredibly poor logic.
Funny how the "unconstitutional law" existed for 200+ years in this country until THIS generation decided it wasn't "constitutional" and got the SCOTUS to rewrite law.
Many laws that were unconstitutional stood for a long time, does that mean that they weren't unconstitutional?
Again...you really need to prove the point that that sexual behavior is anywhere in the same category as any of those other issues. That's where we have an issue. You are making the basic assumption that it is. But you haven't made that point.
Is your claimed heterosexuality all about what you and Mrs. Vizio do under the covers?
Why do you continually associated homosexuality with anal sex and only anal sex?
He sounds more like a liberal Catholic. I mean..he is going against his own church's teachings. Not to mention he's a leader of a foreign country. His views on marriage are irrelevant to us.
Yes. Homosexual behavior is immoral. But that is not why I argue against SSM.
Becuase we do not live in a theocracy. For the same reason I do not argue for criminal prosecution of adulterers.
So your beef with me is that you think I lied about the gay women in this case? That they weren't out to attack the bakery from the start? I'm sorry....my OPINION is that they were. I honestly don't know their actual intentions. Is that better?
I don't recall identifying as "Republican" on this thread. Are you making assumptions again?
Do you know for a fact that the woman DIDN'T go int there with the intent of setting up the bakery?
No I am not making any assumption about your political choice. I stated that the mother of the woman had beleived that homosexuality was wrong until her she found out that her kids were. I pointed out that she was not unique or necessarily a left wing because there are other examples such as the Republican governor who also change their minds upon finding out a family member is gay.
No evidence that the women did not go to set him up: Only one of the couple went in to the bakery, she went in with her mother who was a satistfied customer of the bakery, her testimony of how surprised she was being refused, that it was the mother who went back into the bakery to find out why, there was no recording of this, the baker's testimony did not give any indication that the woman was setting him up, the women did not go to the media but filed a complaint with the State, after their names became know they issued a statement that they thought it was a private issue and that they would not be providing any interviews with the media. If they were setting him up they were totally incompetent. Without the baker publishing their names they would not have gotten any settlement or we most likely would not even know about them. I also see no evidence that the baker intended them any emotional harm on his Facebook page but we are all responsible for our actions even if we do not forsee the outcome of said actions.
On the matter of morality and immoralty I thought you and your fellow Christians argue that morals are universial but now it seems that they might be universal over time but not over borders. A sound argument for or against same sex marriage should be sound no matter where they orginate from. The legal arguments were heard and decided 5-4.
Yes--they fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker. It was a horrendous decision--not just because of what it did, but that they completely overstepped their authority and they did it based on incredibly poor logic.
When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that a lower court ruling violates a provision of a constitutional Amendment, the interpretation of which is specifically the charge of the Supreme Court (which is the ultimate authority on things constitutional), how is it possible for them to overstep their authority?
When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that a lower court ruling violates a provision of a constitutional Amendment, the interpretation of which is specifically the charge of the Supreme Court (which is the ultimate authority on things constitutional), how is it possible for them to overstep their authority?
Because it's a states' rights issue. They do not have the authority to tell the states what marriage is.
There has been no violation of the constitution, only an adjustment to make the application of the contribution fair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
