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.
So you are saying that Plessy vs Ferguson and Dred Scott vs. Sanford were decided correctly?
No, I am saying that is off topic, you should try to stay on topic, but if you must know I think the judge made the decision he made regardless if I thought it was correct or not.
A marriage is about a mating connection. Allowing gays to marry discriminates against science. There is no mating connection known to life , between two of the same gender. If the founder's wanted to include discriminating against science in gay marriage, they would have.
Another ignorant post. Procreation is not required for marriage and marriage is not required for procreation and marriage is not natural, it is a manmade construct. That is why all these bans are falling apart, they have no reasonable excuse to ban same sex marriage that is not based on ignorance or bigotry.
There are only laws written to exclude gay people by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Those laws are NOT written to exclude gay people at all.
You will note that no where in those laws are gay people even mentioned.
None of this controversy ever existed before the gay army came forth with the fiction that they have a "right" to be married.
This was all started by YOU - the rank and file of the gay army.
It is you who has to defend your assertion that your relationship should be legally sanctioned by the government, and you also need to explain why any relationship whatsoever should be legally sanctioned by the government.
The government has no business having anything to do with marriage and homosexuals cannot be married.
You will not fool Harrier with your little tricks.
You are not being discriminated against and you will not trick anyone into believing that you are, except for gullible liberals who can't think critically, rationally, or for themselves.
No, I am saying that is off topic, you should try to stay on topic, but if you must know I think the judge made the decision he made regardless if I thought it was correct or not.
No, you think that the judge was correct just because he is a judge.
That would imply that you think that Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott vs. Sanford were decided correctly.
Harrier has given you two opportunities to deny that you believe such and you have not done so.
Those laws are NOT written to exclude gay people at all.
You will note that no where in those laws are gay people even mentioned.
None of this controversy ever existed before the gay army came forth with the fiction that they have a "right" to be married.
This was all started by YOU - the rank and file of the gay army.
It is you who has to defend your assertion that your relationship should be legally sanctioned by the government, and you also need to explain why any relationship whatsoever should be legally sanctioned by the government.
The government has no business having anything to do with marriage and homosexuals cannot be married.
You will not fool Harrier with your little tricks.
You are not being discriminated against and you will not trick anyone into believing that you are, except for gullible liberals who can't think critically, rationally, or for themselves.
Actually saying marriage is only between a man and a woman is discrimination. The easiest way to prove that is by the fact that you can't give one reason why marriage is only between a woman and a man.
Actually saying marriage is only between a man and a woman is discrimination. The easiest way to prove that is by the fact that you can't give one reason why marriage is only between a woman and a man.
That is the definition of marriage.
Definitions do not change just because some people claim special rights.
No, you think that the judge was correct just because he is a judge.
That would imply that you think that Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott vs. Sanford were decided correctly.
Harrier has given you two opportunities to deny that you believe such and you have not done so.
What else is Harrier supposed to think?
If you must think that, then yes both of those cases were decided correctly because a judge ruled them to be.
I also believe that Plessy v Ferguson was overruled in 1954 with Brown v Board of Education, which I actually agree with that ruling and also feel it was the correct ruling.
As for Dred Scott v Sanford, I am well aware that we have a checks and balance system that allows Congress to overrule a judges decision which is what happened with the 13th and 14th Amendments, which I also agree with.
Are you trying to say the ruling on Brown v Board of Education and the 13th and 14th Amendments are wrong and unconstitutional?
Definitions do not change just because some people claim special rights.
Again, you are incorrect, the definition of marriage in the US changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that made interracial marriage legal in this country when before that it was illegal, much like gay marriage is in many states today.
the best thing for the majority is to let the gay people have the word marriage, they are going to take it anyway...and get a new word. There must be a distinction because there is a distinction. Very simple. Communication all part of evolution, go and take the word...hetro can get another one.
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.
