- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I will wait until you actually find out the definition of a fact, it is a fact that rulings were made but it is also those rulings were opinions. If those rulings were indeed fact then we wouldn't be having this argument here and SSM would be legal in 50 states. The lower courts understood that they didn't have that authority thus their opinions have to be validated. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand that. Being a legend comes with responsibility and you have yet to prove you even have a clue what a fact is
Do you know the impact of deviate sexual behavior on a society over an extended period of time? Can you prove it or do we just have to live it?
Very weak argument that has absolutely no merit.
LMAO wow a complete dodge and deflection after having your post destroyed and factually proved wrong, do you think anybody honest, respected and educated is buying your posts? nobody is . . .nobody
i will ask you again
you posted the lie REPEATEDLY that civil unions are equal to marriage and then your "proof" was that YOU claim texes has civil union equal to marriage
so here are my VERY VERY simple questions
does that civil union gets all 1200 federal rights and protections that marriage does?
does every state recognize that civil union as marriage and give it all the rights and protections that come with marriage?
who wants to bet these questions are dodged again
what deviate sexual behavior are you talking about?
Not at all, TX has no authority to grant federal rights to people in civil unions. Civil unions have to be defined at the Federal level. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand the limitations of what a state can do. Seems to me a rather simple process vs. redefining marriage, get the Federal Govt. to grant people in civil unions the same financial benefits as married couples
The what is your problem and why waste your time here. The issue is solved in your opinion. I don't think you are going to like the outcome of the SC decision or the Constitutional Amendment that the American people will pass.
I have a complete understanding of how the laws in this country work and you better stick with selling your position to the states and quit fighting this in court. You cannot have same sex "marriage" and still not have the definition of marriage defined.
what deviate sexual behavior are you talking about?
Gender means man and woman, States have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have the same rights as I have, you don't like it, take it up with states and have the states change the law, many have. Stop going to the courts. If the people of TX support SSM then so be it. Texans don't like Courts ruling on something that doesn't exist in the Constitution
Not at all, TX has no authority to grant federal rights to people in civil unions. Civil unions have to be defined at the Federal level. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand the limitations of what a state can do. Seems to me a rather simple process vs. redefining marriage, get the Federal Govt. to grant people in civil unions the same financial benefits as married couples
Do you know the impact of deviate sexual behavior on a society over an extended period of time? Can you prove it or do we just have to live it?
I sorry I left my crayons at work or I'd draw you a picture. You know we don't agree so why challenge me? You don't have a hope in hell of changing my opinion.
There not as long as its kept out of my church and were not forced to condone it. If it is forced in my church I'll just stay home worship. The institution as a whole will be fouled so yes it will mean less than it did. No matter the outcome I will obey the law.
you dont like? lol
You dodged his second question.
If 69 were a crime, I'd be the Osama Bin Laden of that ****.
"Deviate sexual behavior" is a subjective phrase and is legal no matter how much you may not approve (at least what I assume you are trying to claim as "deviate sexual behavior" in relation to this subject). I argue that there is nothing deviant at all about same sex sexual activities let alone relationships, so you have nothing here. And you have absolutely no evidence that there is any negative impact from allowing same sex couples to marry. You have to prove the negative impact. I do not have to prove there won't be any.
Remember when I said you'd say it ain't so?
You dodged his second question.
translation: you have nothing to back up your failed claim, thats what i thought
also there's nothing to challenge, you haven't provided anything and lastly i have ZERO interest in changing your OPINION i was just pointing out the fact its meaningless and some of it is factually wrong.
No, sorry, forgot who I was dealing with, people that don't understand state law and responsibility. Marriage is a state issue so are civil unions. It is up to the people of the state to create that civil union which based upon the passion you people have more marriage shouldn't be a problem
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?