Gay Marriage

quote:

---

So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

---

yep.

quote:

---

I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.

---

i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.

quote:

---

I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.

---

i will and i'll take a real baseball team like the cardinals too

quote:

---

I don’t think its homophobic discrimination. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, that’s what it is. A guy can’t marry a toaster because it’s impossible. That isn’t discrimination against toastersexuals. Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster, then I don’t really care. But the Constitution doesn’t demand that all the other states have to allow toastersexual marriages as well.

---

of course its not, but calling people names makes them feel better, and i guess makes them feel like they have legitimized thier cause. seems rather funny those that preach tolerance are always the most intolerant of opposing views.

quote:

---

They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another.

---

that is why Missouri amended thier constitution. They didn't want voters in TAXachusetts to determine policy in Missouri, as they shouldn't.Its called self determination.

quote:

---

Oh, silly me. I thought you were saying something relevant to the real world. My mistake. The Supreme Court is no more likely to make state constitutions obsolete than you are to learn correct capitalization.

---

Grammar Police - the last ploy, when one has nothing left to say, other than attempt to further attack the opposition.

I understand what catholic scientist it typing. our only difference is im not going to call him names and make generalized character assumptions when i do not understand. because you are looking at the wrong things, and all hung up about the homosexual marriage part of it. that is not the big deal of it. the big deal is allowing states to recogninze or not recognize the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It alows the states to determin thier own stance on this issue. by not caring about the homosexual marriages in CA, or MA, but not supporting it in IL, or MO you can not care about an issue in other states while not wanting it in your state. I realize this might be hard for Socialists to understand, but please try and think outside of your box.
Its about States' Rights.this is how i see it, how about you Catholic Scientist, am i close? i think i just explained this.what is amazing is your lack of ability to understand other views without labeling them in a very negative light, while saying you are about tolerance. like the declaration of independance (a valid document of self determination) those are your words not mine

d00d its in the liberal handbook. when you cant reason or have a lack of logic to think about a specific issue, then just slander and vilify your opponet to show how much you care and they dont. go off topic on purpose, and change the subject over and over again. its a common tactic of the left.Im here for states rights, and minding your own business in your own locallity. self determination. I can care less what the laws are in California, I dont go there, and I wont live. they can legalize what ever they want and do thier own thing, as long as they dont make laws that effect me, we're cool (and im not going to vote on laws for them, its none of my business). Since its hard to argue with liberty and self determination in the United States, the only thing the socialist left has is to slander us, our opinoins, and perform character assassinations on us. they have no other substance other than that. Its still really funny to read thier posts though and try and wrap your mind around the crazy talk, thats why I'm here. Also to clear our names though, this is always met with more slander, you can actually meet other people who are fans of similar philosphies to your own.

it happens in almost every thread if you argue with a lefty. in another thread in the coffe house forum about obama and mccain, i referred to Mexico as a shitty ass 3rd world country. and i was called a racist for it by some liberal (Jazzns). Mexico is a country, not a race, and mexicans are a nationality. it makes no sense but that is how the liberal mind works. I dont think racist or homophobic means anything here either. these people dont even know the defintion of the words. the only bad part is they are doing this on purpose. they aren't doing it because they are ignorant of the word meanings, they are doing it for unethical and shady reasons, to push a propaganda. we want to discuss the definitions and legality, and they refuse to come to that table. they make up thier own definitions for marriage, bigot, racist, and homophobic; then want to abuse you for not accepting thier new definitions. its rather odd and amusing to me. which is really sad and hilarious at the same time. sorta invalidates the claim of tolerance IMO. all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment.The validity of the 14th Amendment has been challenged for a long time. It was ratified right after the Civil War, and the 13 Confederate States did not have thier Congressmen and Senators present. basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS. and what happends if they dont? the judical branch has no powers of enforcement. you think the executive branch (the president) is going to send the military to the 39 states that have preposed male/female marriage amendments. do you think because of DC v. Heller i can take my glock into DC now? i commend youthere's alot of well educated people on these boards, i was hoping the trollbait challenge of lack of logic and reasoning, would finally elicit this sort of response. im glad the logic took over.much appriciated, i hope the others on your side follow your lead.no problem here, i can go all day without ad hominem. it remains to be seen if those who disagree with me can. i appriciate it Edited by Artemis Entreri, : hit sumbit too soonEdited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.