Gay Marriage

How is that possible? I need a bit more of an explanation here, Catholic Scientist. How can you both support and yet not support the same thing? It's like saying: "I support laws preventing murder, but I'm OK with it if someone murders someone else". Oh come on now...this is getting ridiculous. To say "they needed judicial interpretation" is pathetic. What this means, of course, is that once homosexuals decided to marry, their right to do so was challenged and States passed laws and amended Constitutions to forbid it. Of course, the "judicial interpretation" has pretty much consistently been that homosexuals do indeed have the right to marry a member of the same sex. The needed "judicial interpretation" to get back that which was improperly taken from them. And this makes them not homophobic how? If they did not fear homosexual marriage, then why did they fear having to recognize homosexual marriage. Seriously Catholic Scientists...you are amazing in your ability to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences and yet deny any sort of contradiction. Bwa ha ha ha! I love that..."what it meant". Of course...not "what it said". They felt the need redefine marriage because it previously did specifically state "between one man and one women". So again, thanks for admitting (in your own, contradictory way) that I was correct. Well on this we finally agree. It's hard to understand you in any other way. Now I'm completely confused. Your OK with gay marriage, but you don't want to allow it. And there's no contradiction there...correct? Well, thus far the Courts seem to be disagreeing with you on this one.Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.Edited by FliesOnly, : typos

I just asked my toaster to marry me. He didn't respond. So I then asked him to sign a marriage license and pre-nup. Again...no response.How many times do we need to remind you of "consent". Christ, it's like dealing with a thread full of Leonard Shelbys. So enough already with the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and tree sex, child sex, animal sex, and now a new one...toaster sex. And likely to eventually be called Unconstitutional.

No...the premise changes nothing. You guys still want to make the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and sex with trees, and kids, and animals, and now, apparently, toasters. Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell, how dare we love our Country so much that we're willing to speak out when we disagree with discrimination based solely on sexual orientation.

Then could not this person also consider murder something that could be legal? If they have no objection to it (as you claim you have no objection to homosexual marriage), then why not just allow murder and not worry about the law? If they have a reason for wanting to keep murder illegal (morally or otherwise), then your premise (as I understand it) fails. You keep saying this, but if it wasn't a legally binding definition then who gives a shit? Courts don't work off of "implicit definitions". Marriage only needed to be redefined once homophobic bigots decided that they had to prevent two guy from marrying each other. Seriously, if you don't give a shit if two guys marry each other, why do you feel any need whatsoever to support DOMA and/or State laws preventing homosexual marriage? First off, I don't believe you...but hey, what do I know...we only "know" each other via this forum. It's just that based on other stuff you have said, I have a hard time accepting that you truly are not bothered by homosexual marriage. And I also must ask...why are you even in this thread then? But aren't most of these decision based in Federal precedents...many from SCOTUS. Wouldn't this mean, therefore, that their decision are often primarily based on the U.S. Constitution?

Bullshit. Why would someone want to marry a fucking toaster? It's a stupid, meaningless comparison, just like all the times we read how you guys all think that this slippery slope is obviously gonna lead to some guy that's
gonna wanna marry a tree...or their child....or a sheep...or whatever. And it still comes down to consent. The day you can get a fucking tree to either verbally agree to the marriage or to sign a consent form, then we can start worrying about your stupid slippery slope. Until then, lets try to keep this discussion based in reality. Well, if you would bother to look back over the last 1000 posts or so, you would see that quite the opposite is true. We actually would greatly appreciate it, and would like nothing more than, if you guys to stop making these stupid comparisons. If my glasses are shit colored, it's only because I've been buried up over my head by your bullshit. For Christ sake, Catholic Scientist...what the hell are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based on if they're not based on their sexual orientation? Height? Hair Color? How they dress? What? What are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based upon?

This may now be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site. Seriously, Artemis, this is destined to become a classic. Wow!