- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
A main component for government sanctioned marriage is the rearing of children. This is the strongest pro-GM position there is. If I were running the legal team arguing for invalidating Prop. 8, I would push the other side into a "rearing of children" debate, and then defeat them on both logic and evidence.
The rearing of children is a component of state sanctioned marriage, but it is not the only component. Anti-GM people lose on rearing children, and they lose trying to argue that marriage is only for children.
The argument that marriage is only for children is illogical in current society and would be a contradiction if anti-GM folks attempted to use it. It would mean redefining marriage, something that they claim to be against.
Seriously. Marriage is for making babies? Has he been living in a BOX for his whole life? If that's the best the anti-gay marriage side can do, gay marriage is coming a hell of a lot faster to this country then I initially believed.
Maybe it's just a polite way of saying that penises are meant to go in vaginas, not another man's anus.
Maybe it's just a polite way of saying that penises are meant to go in vaginas, not another man's anus.
Maybe it's just a polite way of saying that penises are meant to go in vaginas, not another man's anus.
Or a woman's mouth.Maybe it's just a polite way of saying that penises are meant to go in vaginas, not another man's anus.
I can sit here and list sexual aberrations all day long. What's your point? Without good old doggy-style ****ing, the human race wouldn't get very far, would it? If you want to play the other way, that's your business. Don't expect me to call it a marriage.
I can sit here and list sexual aberrations all day long. What's your point? Without good old doggy-style ****ing, the human race wouldn't get very far, would it? If you want to play the other way, that's your business. Don't expect me to call it a marriage.
What you call it is irrelevant. The question is what the law calls it.
Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality. They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. On my side, several hundred million years of evolution. I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.
Yeah they doThey have no right to overturn prop 8.
We're a democratic republic, not a democracy - the way our Founders wanted it.This would be a giant smack to the face of democracy.
That's a right they shouldn't have had, since this does not affect the people as a whole. Therefore I'm all for the Supreme court overturning it. I don't believe in referendum unless the law directly affects the voters.the people voted and prop 8 set marriage as a man and woman in California.
How dare the religious morons vote against something just because they don't like it.How dare they do this,
If it's not overturned, it's a discrace to this country and a defeat of individual liberty. Go ahead and overturn it, and show these Christo-fascist who impose fascim descretely by legal means that the American people have had enough of there elitist, unpatriotic bullcrap.if it is overturned this would just be a disgrace to democracy and a defeat for the rights of voters.
It's an abberation from the norm. Oh My!
FifyTwo things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality. They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. On my side, several hundred years of tooth brushing. I can be tolerant, but I don't need cleaning product perversity shoved down my throat. Toothbrushes are for cleaning teeth, not toilets. It's immoral to use them to clean someone else's **** out of a dirty bowl. End of story.
That is funny because it worked alright to accept homosexuality in Ancient Greece. And no one is forcing it down your throat.
FifyAll I can say is that evolution sure failed you, so it's ironic that you (incorrectly) claim it as supporting your moronic "moral" beliefs.
Pedophilia was also accepted. Game, set and match.
No it wasn't. Sex with young teenages was accepted in most older cultures (even up to the early 1900s), because "old enough to bleed" was considered suitable for sex. But that's not pedophlia by true definition.Pedophilia was also accepted.
You can play me again and I'll go easier on you next time just to give you a chance, don't worry.Game, set and match.
Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality. They are not the same.
Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. On my side, several hundred million years of evolution. I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?