Facebook's PAC has donated 41 percent of contributions to politicians voting against LGBT rights (Seattle, constitution)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by smalltownblues

Yeah, you proved that gays broke the law and California told them they did numerous times. Thanks.

Try reading for comprehension. PROP 22 was ruled unconstitutional.

[smalltownblues]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Try reading for comprehension. PROP 22 was ruled unconstitutional.

You should try reading comprehension, gays broke the law and California told them so numerous times.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by smalltownblues

You should try reading comprehension, gays broke the law and California told them so numerous times.

No, if there is no law against SSM then they can not break the nonexistent law.

[smalltownblues]

Originally Posted by jjrose

No, if there is no law against SSM then they can not break the nonexistent law.

They didn't break nonexistent law, they broke existing law.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak

Prop 8 did not "remove rights" from homosexuals. It preserved the definition of marriage (as it should be preserved).

Homosexuals do not have "marital rights," nor should they. The whole idea is so disgusting! It cheapens the definition of marriage. Next thing you know, people will be demanding to marry their dog!

Originally Posted by Ceist

Yes they used the same slippery slope arguments about incest, bestiality and polygamy back then too. As well as "What about the chillllllldren?"

Here's a more in depth article from a Vermont law review

http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/file...2/johnson1.pdf

And some people claim that the fight for same-sex marriage is not comparable to the fight for interracial marriage.

Even weirder, is that some of the same 'arguments' were even used to protest against women getting the vote back in the early 20th century. "It's unnatural!" "It's against God's plan!" "What next? If women are allowed to vote, will my dog be allowed to vote?" "What about the chillllllllldren?"

What's with the dogs?

So, when women got the vote 100 years ago, did dogs start voting?

When interracial couples were allowed to marry 50 years ago, did people start marrying their dogs?

Have you noticed anyone marrying their dogs since same-sex marriage became legal in many places?

[smalltownblues]

Originally Posted by Ceist

What's with the dogs?

So, when women got the vote 100 years ago, did dogs start voting?

When interracial couples were allowed to marry 50 years ago, did people start marrying their dogs?

Have you noticed anyone marrying their dogs since same-sex marriage became legal in many places?

Interestingly, none of that happened. Until gays started marrying, and then people did marry their dogs. Powerful point.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by smalltownblues

They didn't break nonexistent law, they broke existing law.

There was no law in effect after prop 22 was nullified. How did they break the law when there was no law?

[smalltownblues]

Originally Posted by jjrose

There was no law in effect after prop 22 was nullified. How did they break the law when there was no law?

Yes, there was. Read your own post. Law broken.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by smalltownblues

Interestingly, none of that happened. Until gays started marrying, and then people did marry their dogs. Powerful point.

Prove it. Cite cases with links that shows people legally marrying dogs in the US after SSM was legalized.

[smalltownblues]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Prove it. Cite cases with links that shows people legally marrying dogs in the US after SSM was legalized.

British woman marries dog:

British woman marries her dog, confesses:

Thanks, gays.