Uh Oh

[ConHog]

OH? So now it's "a certain extent" is it? Uh oh, Gabs, better run, you're start to puncture holes in the argument. You know what this means.

It means OCA will start posting that others have sent him messages that they don't like Gabby either and it's his duty to "get her?"

[Nell's Room]

I know you are an Aussie and all but they are not being denied any rights that haven't already posesssed from birth.

They don't have the right to marry the person they love - like you do.

[fj1200]

I don't give a fuck if they stop or not...........but no "special rights" granted to them.

No wills of the people overturned when there is no basis in the COTUS for the overturn.

Not so long as your "rights" are preferred?

I know you are an Aussie and all but they are not being denied any rights that haven't already posesssed from birth.

Where is straight marraige guaranteed in the COTUS? Or did I miss where straight marriage was added to life/liberty/property?

[ConHog]

Nope............COTUS doesn't cover marriage in anyway, shape or form. It doesn't even address majority vs minority unless you are implying now that the federalist papers are part of COTUS.

Again, remember what i've said about society and limits Gomer.

I fixed that for you

Now please explain how you believe the government has the right to define marriage.

[OCA]

lol, Oh, I know you're not man enough to accept judgment. You notice I never asked if you thought it was fair? No, you'll just use another lame excuse to call it a win, cause you don't have the balls admit someone is a better debater, a better anything really, than you are. You tiny, fragile ego would shatter.

Nope, i've refuted every argument of his................all he can do is cry the little "it don't hurt anyone"............he needs more beef than that.

Hint hint........that beef doesn't exist.

[ConHog]

Nope, i've refuted every argument of his................all he can do is cry the little "it don't hurt anyone"............he needs more beef than that.

Hint hint........that beef doesn't exist.

You haven't refuted jack moron.


Your argument is and always has been

"gay sex is icky and I don't like it, so I should get to decide what they can do, because I am God"

IOW you're pathetic.

[OCA]

Not so long as your "rights" are preferred?



Where is straight marraige guaranteed in the COTUS? Or did I miss where straight marriage was added to life/liberty/property?

Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?

The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.

[OCA]

You haven't refuted jack moron.


Your argument is and always has been

"gay sex is icky and I don't like it, so I should get to decide what they can do, because I am God"

IOW you're pathetic.

Oh lord........this is tiring.

Your getting whooped.........show me where under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment queer marriage is addressed.

[ConHog]

Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?

The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.

I got news for you gays have been around since BC to.

As for what the founders could have imagined. `I think they absolutely agreed that marriage was none of the government's god damned business else they would have put it in the fucking COTUS. Notice they prepared for everything else

Now it is true, that you COULD absolutely get a USCOTUS amendment banning gay marriage and them ol nasty queers would be shit out of luck, hell we could legalize enslaving them niggers again if we could get the votes. But a STATE can not do it on it's own, maybe you remember the Civil War?

[ConHog]

Oh lord........this is tiring.

Your getting whooped.........show me where under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment queer marriage is addressed.

show me where in the 14th straight marriage is addressed you idiot.

Oh, and well all KNOW who is getting slapped around like a 12 year old girl trying to take on Mike Tyson in his prime.

[fj1200]

Its a societal institution going back to BC........you want to somehow imply that it is now irrelevant?

As soon as you show where EVERY member of EVERY society has happily engaged in straight marriage you may have the point. Until then you can acknowledge that society has changed to a point where individuals are not required to get married and have kids for the mere act of survival.

The founders could have never imagined what a fucked up place this would become to where that isuue even needed to be addressed.

Mayhaps they merely acknowledge that the Federal government was not required to have purview over such trivialities.

[ConHog]

As soon as you show where EVERY member of EVERY society has happily engaged in straight marriage you may have the point. Until then you can acknowledge that society has changed to a point where individuals are not required to get married and have kids for the mere act of survival.



Mayhaps they merely acknowledge that the Federal government was not required to have purview over such trivialities.

Guess they weren't as brilliant as OCA is.

[jimnyc]

You would be correct. I have not heard one single argument against gay marriage that can't be shot down in flames. The anti gay rabble don't have any argument - and if they think their Bible can make the argument for them, they are kidding themselves.

That's because the argument doesn't suit what YOU believe. Quite frankly, I have heard great arguments from both sides. If I were to take 90% of the gay marriage debating reasons, I can then apply it to so many other sick things for society and the argument would remain the same. But I'm a betting man, and I'm betting that the "So long as it doesn't hurt anyone" argument will go down the drain awfully quickly.

[OCA]

That's because the argument doesn't suit what YOU believe. Quite frankly, I have heard great arguments from both sides. If I were to take 90% of the gay marriage debating reasons, I can then apply it to so many other sick things for society and the argument would remain the same. But I'm a betting man, and I'm betting that the "So long as it doesn't hurt anyone" argument will go down the drain awfully quickly.

Tax evasion doesn't hurt anyone else but you'll sure as hell go to the pokey if you don't pay your taxes for a few years.

[jimnyc]

Sure.

Marriage is a religious establishment , not a government establishment. Telling consenting adults they can't marry is a violation of their first amendment rights.

Yes, that includes homosexuals, and bigamists. It does not include children though because they legally can not consent.

/thread

Can he find where marriage is mentioned at ALL in the COTUS. It in fact isn't , which means (as I know we agree) that marriage is OUTSIDE the purview of the government and thus they have no right to define it.

You used the COTUS to claim they would be violated just 2 pages back. If it's outside the purview of the government, and it's not mentioned in the constitution, then it can hardly be a violation of the constitution.