Gay Marriage

Don't you think your arguments should amount to a bit more than:this far along in the (2^nd) thread?I think you should be taken out and shot. You think you shouldn't be taken out and shot. Is it really the "value of opinion" you want to be arguing about and not the "taken out and shot" bit?Hint ” for the hundredth time: John and Mary can have their opinion all day long; it's their codifying it into a law that represses the self-determination of millions of Americans that's the problem. If you disagree with this bit of "f***ing redundant stuff" could you please say why?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Hid double post.Edited by lyx2no, : Damn submit button.Edited by lyx2no, : Damn some other thing that didn't behave as I'd expected.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

And for the hundred and first time you are welcome to the opinion. I don't get it either. I can't get myself to understand why women would have any interest in men. This is one of the things that clues me that I'm thinking only about sexuality from my point of view. How unfair it would be to make laws based only on my point of view. Especially for you as I think you should be taken out and shot. Sorry Taz. I think I might have stepped on your toes with that one.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Vague fears of undefined concerns are hardly reason to repress the self-determination of millions of your fellow Americans.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

The laws of nature said you should have been eaten by a zebra or died of rickets when you were ten. But as Americans, we have no obligation to comply with anyones ideas of the laws of nature.Civil marriage laws are about property, not reproduction. Should men and women be subject to fertility testing prior to marriage? They're not, you know? Why is that do you think? By the bye, gay folks have property.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

What you got here is called a silly idea ” If man were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Men have no regard for imaginary laws of nature. Gravity, thermodynamics, something else that doesn't come to mind right now . fine. Laws of Nature restricting us to act as expected by people who imagine that they know what's good for us . nope. Enjoy your laws of nature but I'm flying. My wife divorced me because I'm a big, fat, booger eating slob. So I'm going to declare marriage to be about nose gold. Dude, the varied reasons that people dissolve the marriage contract is not the reason for the contract. That thing about the too small vagina . who are you kidding, Mr. Studly?Edited by lyx2no, : Typos

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Children and heirs . in regard to property.
Protection of women/Moms . in regard to property.
Property rights and dispensation . in regard to property.Hey, I'm detecting a pattern here. Let me see . in what regard does civil marriage concern itself with the family? Humm . Oh yeah! Property.How many kids does the government suggest we have? They don't suggest anything.How many times a day does the government suggest we kiss our spouses every day? They don't suggest anything.How many vacations does the government suggest we should take the kiddiwinks on over the years? They don't suggest anything.If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property. Oh, you mean, like, property? Yeah, that's why it's one of them there fundamental rights that must be afforded every citizen equally per the fourteenth Amendment. Two parts . two comments: Are you just making stuff up now? & You don't say?Nope, 'fraid not. The government eliminated gender differentiation in civil marriage. There are no gender specific duties to define the parties. That's probably because government's soul, compelling interest to interfere in civil marriage is property resolution upon contract dissolution. The U.S. Constitution isn't compelling? Sufficient for what: To make it apparent that you've payed no heed to any of the preceding six hundred posts? You've not added one new bit or argued any old bit.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

When the government forces a parent to support the child, what form does it take: Physical elevation, moral support, or, oh yeah! property? The quality of welfare enforced by the government is base on what: Self-esteem, joy, oh yeah! property?If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property? Fine, then show me a law that has a gender roll differential within marriage. Something along the lines of, "The dude snatches up a moose and the chippie deep fries it." Excuse me, Rrhain, is that second hand smoke you've been blowing out of your . Damn, randman, read the thread.

quote:

---

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Damn, randman, read the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment affords equal protection of the law to all citizens. The argument that the Constitution doesn't mention Gay marriage is a classic red herring. It also doesn't mention straight marriage.How many times are y'all going to repeat this argument when it's obviously flawed? Oh yeah! You wouldn't know how many times because you haven't read the thread.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

I spent my high school years in SoCo. It was always on fire. I went from there to Arizona where a thousand lightening strikes is called an afternoon in July. If this is the best God can do let him bring it. Kind of like your arguments against Gay marriage.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Gravity has established my obligation to submit to it on more than one occasion. You have yet to establish my obligation to submit to your understanding of natural law. Your notions are not universal truths.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

As one of the liars I'd just like to say that the statement " If we allow x, we must allow y as well." does imply that there is some equivocation between the two. Why else must we allow y if it is not because it shares some properties with x. That's just what "equivocating" means in this part of the woods. Your refusal to recognize that you are equivocating with out substantiating, knowingly or not, has been ongoing.AbE: So as not to get myself into trouble; this is not a statement implying onifre is anything less than as honest as the day is long, but that only the most competent among us does not read his handle as "on fire".Edited by lyx2no, : After thoughts.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

It is a bit simple to believe that every last bit of a man's life is open to your vote, don't you think? Are there not some decisions that are better made as generalizations so that each can find their own path through the world? If your avatar is at all representative, you must realize that you're one of the first on the chopping block. Sure, you think it's a good look, but do you want to put your screw convention look to a popular vote?

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Okay fine, not a popular vote. Would you want anyone other than yourself voting to decide the minutia of your everyday life? I mean other than your mom who sets out your Geranimals in the morning.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Why would they give you the six million dollars when they can use a small portion of that six million on a divorce lawyer to take the movie rights? (Or any of a thousand other doors that would be open to the less stupid of the parties in your little schema.) Did you really think you had a brilliant point to bring us all up short, or were you being entirely facetious?

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

How times change.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—