Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage (parade, v, claim)
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.
Harrier lost. Harrier is sad. See Harrier cry. Cry, Harrier, cry.
Then marry your friggin dumb cat and move on. WOW. I think I have more productive conversations with my four-year-old.
I have a coworker who makes the same claim about people marrying animals (as opposed to cats, his bestiality ponderings concern dogs). I've pointed out to him that since dogs are not 'persons' (to which Constitutional rights specifically apply), allowing people to marry isn't going to lead to dogs (or any other non-humans) marrying any more than allowing women to vote was ever going to lead to dogs voting.
Anyone who can't comprehend that very basic application of logic is either rather dumb, or being obtuse because being obtuse and appearing dumb entertains that person. I suspect the latter applies to a certain participant of this thread who long ago managed to find a place among the very short number of posters worthy of my ignore list.
Anyway, when I pointed out to my coworker that extending the vote to women in 1920 hasn't led to canine suffrage, his reply was: "Sure it hasn't... yet!".
Real genius there. And I see he has plenty of peers here in these forums.
I have a coworker who makes the same claim about people marrying animals (as opposed to cats, his bestiality ponderings concern dogs). I've pointed out to him that since dogs are not 'persons' (to which Constitutional rights specifically apply), allowing people to marry isn't going to lead to dogs (or any other non-humans) marrying any more than allowing women to vote was ever going to lead to dogs voting.
Anyone who can't comprehend that very basic application of logic is either rather dumb, or being obtuse because being obtuse and appearing dumb entertains that person. I suspect the latter applies to a certain participant of this thread who long ago managed to find a place among the very short number of posters worthy of my ignore list.
Anyway, when I pointed out to my coworker that extending the vote to women in 1920 hasn't led to canine suffrage, his reply was: "Sure it hasn't... yet!".
Real genius there. And I see he has plenty of peers here in these forums.
Good post. And they aren't being dumb; they're just being obtuse and difficult because they don't want to admit defeat.
I mean, it's a good indication when conservative politicians are backing away from this as a campaign issue. The door has closed and they know it. It will cost them at the ballot box if they were to continue pursuing it.
Anyway, when I pointed out to my coworker that extending the vote to women in 1920 hasn't led to canine suffrage, his reply was: "Sure it hasn't... yet!".
Real genius there. And I see he has plenty of peers here in these forums.
Why do gay army troopers always make inane references to things that have nothing to do with homosexual "marriage" like referring to Loving v Virgiinia or women's suffrage?
Black people are men and women, and the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that is what SCOTUS did is Loving v Virginia - they upheld marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The 19th Amendment simply extended the vote to a group of people to whom denying it served no purpose.
Gay marriage serves no purpose and is not a right.
Government involvement in marriage also serves no purpose, and should be abolished.
Have whatever relationship you want, do what you wish in your home, and call it whatever you want.
Don't force Harrier to endorse or accept it, and don't shove it down his throat.
This analogy doesn't appear to work considering that both homosexuality and marriage were known about at the time that the U.S. Constitution was written.
And? Blacks weren't allowed to marry whites during that time, now they are. Do you think that is wrong too?
You apparently forgot to read this part of mine:
"And again, to clarify, I support this ruling from the perspective of morality. From the perspective of the U.S. Constitution, well, I suppose that I might be able to see it both ways."
As for interracial marriage, I haven't studied these court cases well enough to comment on it from the perspective of the U.S. Constitution (of course, either way, it doesn't really matter at this point in time since the U.S. Constitution can be amended and I would think that there would be enough support for such an amendment). However, as with gay marriage, from the perspective of morality, I obviously strongly support having interracial marriage be legal nationwide.
Why do gay army troopers always make inane references to things that have nothing to do with homosexual "marriage" like referring to Loving v Virgiinia or women's suffrage?
Black people are men and women, and the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that is what SCOTUS did is Loving v Virginia - they upheld marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The 19th Amendment simply extended the vote to a group of people to whom denying it served no purpose.
Gay marriage serves no purpose and is not a right.
Government involvement in marriage also serves no purpose, and should be abolished.
Have whatever relationship you want, do what you wish in your home, and call it whatever you want.
Don't force Harrier to endorse or accept it, and don't shove it down his throat.
Why do anti-gay bigots seem obsessed with things being put into their throats?
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.
