Gee thanks Don Con for blowing past the point so you can offer a profanity response.<quoted text>
Listen stupid, and I do mean stupid, their is a direct correlation towards the "considerable consensus" back in the 50's and 60's who didn't accept interracial marriages back in that time and the "considerable consensus" of those lost souls who don't want gay marriage in the current day.
See shitforbrains.....that's the point.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The issue was not whether a mixed race couple's relationship constituted a marriage, but rather whether or not legally they should be able to marry. There is still a considerable consensus that does accept a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship constitutes "marriage".
Gee....he knows in what country he lives in.See...you live in America. Not Uganda.
What are you talking about McFly? No "freedom" was taken away? More like it was given due to the Lawrence case, free to engage in whatever sexual activity in private with whatever consenting adults(s) one wishes. Stop drinking the alcohol spiked rainbow punch.Here, in America, we cherish our freedoms and liberties and unless you can find any real harm in a freedom(s) your fellow American wishes to pursue you need to step out of the way given it's not your decision how they live.
What "freedom" are they pursuing? Plus they do that by asking the government to regulate they intimate personal sexual relationships? Great contradiction McFly.
Well let's take a close look at your dicked up existence. I bet there's no less than 102 freedoms of your neighbors would take away given no doubt you have pursuits either no one cares about or wants as well.
Be stupid elsewhere.