Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
  1. #41  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by hai View Post
    Actually they don't have the same rights.

    Your map meme is bullshit. You can not be descriminated against in hiring practices for who you choose to sleep with.

    Sorry...fail on your part.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    So long as the government issues marriage licenses and JOPs can conduct ceremonies, in accordance with equal rights/civil rights/rights, the government cannot deny two consenting men or women to get married. That would be discrimination. Discrimination in the public sector is illegal. Isn't it?
    They can deny two consenting hetero's a marriage liscence too. Your point? The only reason a marriage liscence is issued is because you can be charged a fee for it. Marriage and the definition there of existed generations before anyone every thought to tax it.

    It's not discrimination..it's greed. And if a Justice of The Peace is presiding over the ceremony...it's a civil union...which last time I checked is allowed even by states that don't support gay "marriage".

    You've failed to prove...again...how this is some kind of civil rights violation.



    Yup. Marriage was created solely for child rearing. Not grabbing land, ending wars, etc. And children can do just fine without their parents being married.
    Ummm...ok.



    It should not matter who the target is, any form of government discrimination is wrong.
    If this were actually a discrimination case you might have a point. However it's not therefore you don't.




    I never said they were. Stay on topic, tx.
    I am on topic. You're citing the 14th Amendment. Equal proitection clause and such. One of the things it was designed to do was protect freed slaves after the Civil War...IIRC the 14th is the first of the Reconstruction Amendments. So you're trying to compare gay "marriage" to what was being done to freed slaves in the south after the Civil War...and what continued into the 60's.

    There is no comparision for the reasons I stated above. I'm on topic...you just need to keep up.



    I was not aware people could be as fucking dense as you just displayed with that first sentence.
    Stating that if there hadn't been the institution of marriage passed down for a couple millenia as a way to continue family lines and build nations Nova's parents probably would have concieved him is a simple statement of fact. Only people with piss poor reading comprehension and a serious lack of critical thinking skills would thinkl that was "dense".
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I don't give a damn what you do. You're some kind of nutcase who is obsessed with gay people.
    For a "nutcase" whose actions are a source of indifference to you, she certainly gets your attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The will of the people of Utah is irrelevant when it is in conflict with the rights of the individual.

    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.
    This has always been the goal of gay activists, to force gay marriage on everyone by getting it passed in one or two states, and then using the 14th Amendment to impose it on the remainder. However, the the logical outcome of this is the end of federalism, as anything that one state licenses must therefore be honored in all other states. An example of this: If Nevada has legal gambling, but Arizona does not, and a person in Arizona makes a bet by phone to a Vega bookie and loses, is the debt recoverable in Arizona? Does the bookie have standing in the Arizona courts? And if not, if the bookie sues in Nevada, is the warrant issued by the Nevada court over a gambling debt actionable in Arizona?

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Sure it is.

    Timeline
    2001 Netherlands (1 April)
    2002 (none)
    2003 Belgium (1 June), Ontario (10 June), British Columbia (8 July)
    2004 Quebec (19 March), Massachusetts (17 May), Yukon (14 July), Manitoba (16 September), Nova Scotia (24 September), Saskatchewan (5 November), Newfoundland (21 December)
    2005 New Brunswick (23 June), Spain (3 July), Canada [national] (20 July)
    2006 South Africa (30 November)
    2007 (none)
    2008 California (16 June, discontinued 5 November; reinstated 28 June 2013), Connecticut (12 November)
    2009 Norway (1 January), Iowa (27 April), Sweden (1 May), Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) (May), Vermont (1 September)
    2010 New Hampshire (1 January), District of Columbia (3 March), Mexican Federal District (4 March), Portugal (5 June), Iceland (27 June), Argentina (22 July)
    2011 New York (24 July), Suquamish tribe (Washington) (1 August)
    2012 Alagoas (6 January), Quintana Roo (May), Denmark (15 June), Sergipe (15 July), Espírito Santo (15 August), Caribbean Netherlands (10 October), Bahia (26 November), Brazilian Federal District (1 December), Washington (6 December), Piauí (15 December), Maine (29 December)
    2013 Maryland (1 January), São Paulo (16 February), Ceará & Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Michigan) (15 March), Paraná (26 March), Mato Grosso do Sul (2 April), Rondônia (26 April), Santa Catarina & Paraíba (29 April), Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (Michigan) (8 May), Brazil [national] (16 May), France (18 May), Santa Ysabel Tribe (California) (24 June), California (28 June), Delaware (1 July), Minnesota & Rhode Island (1 August), Uruguay (5 August), New Zealand (19 August), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington) (5 September), Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (Oklahoma) (by October 10),[64][65] New Jersey (21 October), Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (15 November), Hawaii (2 December), New Mexico (19 December), Utah (20 December)
    2014 England and Wales (29 March), Illinois (1 June)
    You forgot one:

    5,000 BC-2001-None.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    So long as the government issues marriage licenses and JOPs can conduct ceremonies, in accordance with equal rights/civil rights/rights, the government cannot deny two consenting men or women to get married. That would be discrimination. Discrimination in the public sector is illegal. Isn't it?
    It is only discrimination if you accept that the state has the right to fundamentally change the definition of a marriage. If a marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and gay men are permitted to marry lesbians, then there is no discrimination. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Yup. Marriage was created solely for child rearing. Not grabbing land, ending wars, etc. And children can do just fine without their parents being married.
    Marriage was created for child rearing. It eventually became useful for other societal ends, but that doesn't change the nature of the institution or its origins. And children do not do fine without married parents. Divorce has horrific effects on children, especially if they are subsequently raised by single parents. Children of divorce are far more likely to have problems in school, use drugs or indulge in other antisocial conduct. Children raised by single parents are far more likely to be raised in poverty and to be subjected to abuse and neglect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    It should not matter who the target is, any form of government discrimination is wrong.
    Again, it's not discrimination if it's applied equally, and up until the activists chose to redefine marriage, it was. However, the law discriminates against other forms of "marriage", such as polygamy. Would you demand that those prohibitions be struck down?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Is marriage a requirement for children?
    Maybe not but one man and one woman is a requirement for children. No matter how you try to slice it, 2 men or 2 women cannot produce a child.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    So long as the government issues marriage licenses and JOPs can conduct ceremonies, in accordance with equal rights/civil rights/rights, the government cannot deny two consenting men or women to get married. That would be discrimination. Discrimination in the public sector is illegal. Isn't it?
    This is where you leftists get it wrong. In not one corner of this country can is it illegal for 2 consenting people(or not depending if paw is standing behind holding a shotgun) to get married. 2 guys can rent out the Biltmore Estates, hire the best wedding planner money can buy, invite 1,000 guests, even get the Pope to officiate it. Doesn't mean the state has to recognize it. But let me ask you. A brother and sister are consenting adults. It is discrimination to disallow them to be married?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    35,194
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Your map meme is bullshit. You can not be descriminated against in hiring practices for who you choose to sleep with.

    Sorry...fail on your part.
    its hyperbole wrapped around right to work laws. You can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. But mainly its the unions latest scam to kill these laws off. Its a coordinated effort. Our new governor took the occasion of inaguration to pick up on it as one of his things to do. Hes lost his laser focus on jobs too. I will not act surprized. GOP mucked up badly in that campaign.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,278
    The will of the people of Utah is irrelevant when it is in conflict with the rights of the individual.
    Isn't it funny how all of a sudden nova is concerned about the rights of the individual?

    Yup. Marriage was created solely for child rearing. Not grabbing land, ending wars, etc. And children can do just fine without their parents being married.
    Exactly what rock do you live under? One common denominator found in career criminals is that they lived in a broken home or a home without any type of father figure. I come from a divorced family and I can tell you that my home life wasn't sherbet and rainbows. To this day I still have lasting effects from that experience.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Isn't it funny how all of a sudden nova is concerned about the rights of the individual?
    When have I not been concerned about the rights of the individual? More precisely: in which way have I left you to assume that I have not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    When have I not been concerned about the rights of the individual? More precisely: in which way have I left you to assume that I have not?
    The fact that gay "rights" is the only time you seem to voice any concern for individual rights period?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    The fact that gay "rights" is the only time you seem to voice any concern for individual rights period?
    You can't support that claim. I am on record in this forum in support of of indivual rights
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •