SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman.
The constitution was not written with homosexuals in mind, therefore I am glad that homosexuals are deprived of the same rights as heterosexuals.
I will allow that this issue will not die. The homsexuals are just like the race card players. They will not be satisfied with equal treatment, they want to be special and treated better than others. They want your acceptance and your pity for what they have endured.
Let the homsexuals have their own festive union or what ever they choose to call it.
Do not let them pollute and violate the intent and tradition of marriage

That's right! No one is stopping them from buttfucking each other, but it shouldn't be called marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It was never contemplated as anything else until modern liberalism fucked everything else up first.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

That's right! No one is stopping them from buttfucking each other, but it shouldn't be called marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It was never contemplated as anything else until modern liberalism fucked everything else up first.

You guys are some sad-ass sacks of shit. They're human beings and they deserved to be treated the same as everybody else.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by timpage

You guys are some sad-ass sacks of shit. They're human beings and they deserved to be treated the same as everybody else.

Criminals are human beings too, dumbfuck..how should they be treated?
George W Bush is a human being - how did you liberals treat him?
How are they even being mistreated in this country, anyway? Just because half the population doesn't want them to have the "benefits" of marriage, or not call two guys a "married couple" who like to lick each others assholes then stick their dicks in their asses?
The founding fathers would never have even considered faggots getting married - they would have laughed at the idea.
As would MLK, I'm sure.
As for a link to that, stick it up your faggot loving ass.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Criminals are human beings too, dumbfuck..how should they be treated?
George W Bush is a human being - how did you liberals treat him?
How are they even being mistreated in this country, anyway? Just because half the population doesn't want them to have the "benefits" of marriage, or not call two guys a "married couple" who like to lick each others assholes then stick their dicks in their asses?
The founding fathers would never have even considered faggots getting married - they would have laughed at the idea.
As would MLK, I'm sure.
As for a link to that, stick it up your faggot loving ass.

There's not one thing in your post that has any relevance to the discussion. It's exactly the same type of hateful rhetoric that the anti-semites use: jews are dirty, they are money-grubbers, blah blah blah. Christ, you would think one of God's chosen people would show a little humanity.

But no....your post just re-affirms what everybody already knows: that you're a no-account hating piece of shit.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Criminals are human beings too, dumbfuck..how should they be treated?
George W Bush is a human being - how did you liberals treat him?
How are they even being mistreated in this country, anyway? Just because half the population doesn't want them to have the "benefits" of marriage, or not call two guys a "married couple" who like to lick each others assholes then stick their dicks in their asses?
The founding fathers would never have even considered faggots getting married - they would have laughed at the idea.
As would MLK, I'm sure.
As for a link to that, stick it up your faggot loving ass.

I'm gonna have to also say that when I talk about or argue about gay rights, unlike you, I don't laser focus in on "dicks in asses" and "lick each others assholes" like you do. I wonder why you are so zeroed in on that stuff? Have you ever thought about it? I think it may be psychologically significant for you. Have you spoken to your therapist about it? Or your wife?

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Obviously Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexual union cannot sustain the species. Lets look at something hypothetically. Lets say there are two islands separated by hundreds of miles of water. Island number one has only two people on it, two male Homosexuals. Island number two has only two people on it, a male and a female. Lets say all four of the individuals on both islands are 20 years old and the life expectancy is 75 years old. I think it would be safe to assume that in 55 years Island number one wouldn't have any people living on it and island number two would be populated. So a Homosexual union isn't equal to a heterosexual union on that basis alone. You can't achieve equality in bits and pieces it must be overall.

Jim

With a population over 7 billion, heterosexuals are doing a mighty fine job of keeping the species going. In fact, given that we are adding roughly 100 million people every year, one might argue that heterosexuals are actually doing too good of a job.

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Marriage may not produce kids. But marriages that do produce children also produce families and that's what a man women union is designed to do. The only argument gays have in the marriage debate is they think they should have the same legal perks as a married heterosexual couple has. It just so happens the sexual practices between homosexuals is still on the books as illegal in many states and that's one reason why homosexual marriages aren't legal in all states. Homosexual behavior is not regarded as a normal part of human culture, in fact studies of homosexual behavior in prisons between otherwise heterosexual inmates is due to their inability to cope with the stresses of prison life.

Jim

I trust that you will be asking the state to declare invalid those marriages that fail to produce any children?

I trust that you will be asking that women over 45 years old not be allowed to marry, since they will be unable to produce children?

I trust that you will be asking that inmates who want to marry one of their groupies not be allowed to marry since the marriage cannot be consummated, let alone produce children?

Right? Since marriage is all about the children, then none of the above marriages should be sanctioned.

Originally Posted by rioseco

Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman.
The constitution was not written with homosexuals in mind, therefore I am glad that homosexuals are deprived of the same rights as heterosexuals.
I will allow that this issue will not die. The homsexuals are just like the race card players. They will not be satisfied with equal treatment, they want to be special and treated better than others. They want your acceptance and your pity for what they have endured.
Let the homsexuals have their own festive union or what ever they choose to call it.
Do not let them pollute and violate the intent and tradition of marriage

Equal rights are not special rights. Legally recognized marriages provides more than 1,000 rights, protections, and privileges. Heterosexuals have full access to these rights as soon as they say "I do". To deny these same rights to homosexuals makes them specials granted only to heterosexuals. I am glad to know that you are so strongly opposed to granting special rights. It is nice to have you join the side favoring equal rights for all.

One last thing, I don't give a flying wet shit whether you accept me or not, and I sure as hell do not need or want your pity. Neither does any other gay or bisexual person.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

With a population over 7 billion, heterosexuals are doing a mighty fine job of keeping the species going. In fact, given that we are adding roughly 100 million people every year, one might argue that heterosexuals are actually doing too good of a job.





I trust that you will be asking the state to declare invalid those marriages that fail to produce any children?

I trust that you will be asking that women over 45 years old not be allowed to marry, since they will be unable to produce children?

I trust that you will be asking that inmates who want to marry one of their groupies not be allowed to marry since the marriage cannot be consummated, let alone produce children?

Right? Since marriage is all about the children, then none of the above marriages should be sanctioned.



Equal rights are not special rights. Legally recognized marriages provides more than 1,000 rights, protections, and privileges. Heterosexuals have full access to these rights as soon as they say "I do". To deny these same rights to homosexuals makes them specials granted only to heterosexuals. I am glad to know that you are so strongly opposed to granting special rights. It is nice to have you join the side favoring equal rights for all.

One last thing, I don't give a flying wet shit whether you accept me or not, and I sure as hell do not need or want your pity. Neither does any other gay or bisexual person.

Don't let your emotions on this subject drive you into saying absolutely stupid shit.


Jim

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Don't let your emotions on this subject drive you into saying absolutely stupid shit.


Jim

And don't pretend to be a conservative who values smaller government and greater personal freedom, while expecting the government to legislate based on what personally offends you. Personal freedom means personal freedom, period. No sub-clauses, no disclaimers, no reservations.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

And don't pretend to be a conservative who values smaller government and greater personal freedom, while expecting the government to legislate based on what personally offends you. Personal freedom means personal freedom, period. No sub-clauses, no disclaimers, no reservations.

Your stand on this whole Gay Marriage issue is almost as hideous as saying real dumb kids should be able to obtain College Scholarships the same as the real smart kids.


Jim

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

I won't even get into Human-animal marriage.

There goes Lowrider69 one chance of finding a 'wife' !

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

The real point here is that you like to point out other's hypocrisy. I know you don't take this board seriously(only when you want to) but others do. You use terms like teabilly to insult and constantly use homophobic slurs yet you claim to be a Libertarian. Either you are a faux Libertarian or you are purposefully being obtuse. Try being a little less obtuse, offer meaningful thought and commentary from time to time and stay away from the temptation to insult someone based on their beliefs. After all isn't the way someone chooses to feel about a particular issue a personal characteristic. Oh shit, there you go discriminating again. Or do you think I'm being obtuse?

So the real point is that you do not care for me being obtuse? Fair enough , you're probably not the only one. Not sure if I can help on that one.

I like the civil unions a contract thing btw.

[i'va biggen]

Should have never let gay's marry, should have civil unions with the same benefits as marriage .

[WTF]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Should have never let gay's marry, should have civil unions with the same benefits as marriage .

That is all they wanted...this marriage crap is just semantics.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is all they wanted...this marriage crap is just semantics.

Yep.

Let's face it. The chances of two fags being monogamous is pretty remote.

Like I said before. The lawyers are the winners.

I wonder if the "common law" statutes will be the same for Gays?

[CuteOldGuy]

Why do you care if same sex couples marry? It does not affect you. It has no effect on anything, except in cases where one is hospitalized. Now their significant other can be present without interference, and cases like that. It is none of the government's business who you love or what you want to call it.

For thousands of years, the wife was the property of the husband. That's a traditional marriage. Let's see how well that is received these days.