don't care, saw an insult and didn't read the rest.
so you typed all that for nothing...
try again without the insults and maybe I will read it...
....you're not the only one who reads these posts moron.
Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.Full Story
#619 Dec 5, 2012
....you're not the only one who reads these posts moron.
#620 Dec 5, 2012
Now we're speaking ghetto smack.
Now THERE'S a sign of intelligence.
Geeeeezus....you'd defend a night out with the girls where you got so blind drunk you puked on yourself but kept partying...LOL!!!
#621 Dec 5, 2012
"'72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases
The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether it's going to take up a key gay marriage cases. But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.
That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.""
#622 Dec 5, 2012
That you cannot communicate effectively.
#623 Dec 5, 2012
I'm ALWAYS polite.
To polite people.
#624 Dec 5, 2012
Opps Moan a Lott alrready showed you..
now let me explain why you are ignorant:
"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below. However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case. As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case."
The best part is you think you are making an argument by being flat wrong...
#625 Dec 5, 2012
#626 Dec 5, 2012
how about you just explain what the heck you were trying to say instead of getting snarky at me that what you wrote is undecipherable?
#627 Dec 5, 2012
I can't get over that one.
And this Jane slut wants to discuss effective communication.
I wonder if she has an actual Dictionary not infused with ghetto slang and can look up the word 'paradox'.
#628 Dec 5, 2012
seriously, are you in china translating into English?
you seem ignorant of our culture and the way we write...
#629 Dec 5, 2012
Trying to pass off your other user name as belonging to someone else? LOLAY! Just like we'd expect from a fake lawyer.
#630 Dec 5, 2012
I can get past that you don't know what a zing is...
“Together for 24, legal for 5”
Since: Sep 07
#631 Dec 5, 2012
Of course, you pay your use tax as soon as you cross the bridges provided to you by the state of New Hampshire, don't you? I couldn't imagine an officer of the court skirting the law and not paying his fair share to the guvn'r.
I'd be surprised if you didn't. I'm glad you are aware of that. Many seem to be oblivious to the number of gays and lesbians who surround them.
#632 Dec 5, 2012
Actually, the state of NH hasn't been to generous with its bridges, the main on has been out for years and they will not fix it...
Yes, many of our local officials are openly gay. They are great people who are doing a great job.
Just so you know, it is rational to support gays but not their right to marry...
we have to overcome the differences in the sexes to have a successful marriage and you do not...
you want the same name for half the work...
also, as people are around gays more, you need to realize that you cannot sell your just so stories anymore, they are just people like anyone else, they cheat, lie, steal, and abuse their kids just like everyone else!
While we are being honest, the lesbians I know are always bragging about the size and color of their strap ons? It always struck me as weird since they just buy them...
Do you know why they do that?
#633 Dec 5, 2012
there sure are a lot of references to procreation and child rearing as well as a subtle tone that there is an interrelation between these concepts...
you must see it, right?
how is a piece of paper "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."? it snot, but procreation is...
wait, wasn't procreation in the original line from skinner? why yes it was...
inneresting isnt it?
"[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society”"
what interests, procreation and child rearing?
" an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." what is that purpose?
either way, you have to admit there sure is a lot of talk about these things together for there to be no connection as you claim...
Since: Jun 11
#634 Dec 5, 2012
Again you ignore the fact gay people can and do procreate. They also raise children that have been adopted.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming gay parent families by refusing to treat them equally to straight parent families. Denial of equality provides no benefit to straight families. It does nothing more than harm gay families.
Additionally, none of those 14 cases affirming marriage as a fundamental right said procreation was a requirement, and some made it clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when the ability to procreate does not exist. Raising children is only one consideration. It does not require marriage, nor does marriage require raising children.
Procreation ability or intent has never been a legal requirement for marriage.
“Together for 24, legal for 5”
Since: Sep 07
#635 Dec 5, 2012
It's never been clear to me how the maintenance on those bridges is split. I know we own them, but I assume Vermont helps out with the cost of maintaining them.(Afterall, Vermonters need them to come here, where they can save the sales tax!)
I wonder how many members of your gay and lesbian caucus voted against marriage equality?
I'll assume that was a joke.
Of course, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise.
Actually, lesbians have never had that conversation around me. They must be tweaking the noses of straight men. Perhaps they heard you and your friends bragging about your penises and wanted to let you know how well they had that covered. Or perhaps they were hinting that you might want to give one as a gift to your wife or girlfriend.
“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”
Since: Aug 08
#636 Dec 5, 2012
You think that just because our marriages involve 2 people of the Same-Sex that we DON'T have to overcome any differences, says who? My wife and I are NOT the same person just because we are the same sex......and we have different ideas, feelings and thoughts about day to day stuff just like ANY OTHER OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLE does.......even when it comes to the intimacy of sex!!!
As for your pathetic comment about the Lesbians you say you know talking about the color and size of their supposed strap-ons.......who the fruck cares? Personally, not every Lesbian couple explores that area and I doubt they discuss it out in public and IF they do........then they are doing it for the SHOCK value!!!
#637 Dec 5, 2012
You can talk and quote till you're blue in the face. You will NEVER tie marriage to procreation. No court has ruled it as a requirement to be married. Zero. No court has ruled you have to be married to have kids either. The rest is bla bla bla nonsense. Your assertion is baseless. To apply a biological procreation requirement to gays but not straights is arbitrary. Your motivation sans any demonstrable basis is likely ignorance or animus or both.
Honestly I think your posts demonstrate high intelligence. I'm guessing animus. I'm pretty sure the government can't use that as a reason to deny equal treatment.
#638 Dec 5, 2012
and you miss that the connection of marriage and procreation requires the procreation at issue to be between the parties to the marriage...
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
no, they say that procreation is the right that forms the basis for marriage rights. I mean, what else could all those lines that you put forward mean?
How many times do they have to always add procreation after marriage does it take for you to at least admit they are generally treated as connected...
by your standards nothing is required of a marriage but two people and a piece of paper, but clearly that is not what the court is referring to.
Commitment is not REQUIRED, and many do not commit... do you think commitment is connected to marriage?
And look at what a fundamental right is, as you said the other day, its none of the gov'ts business...
how is a marriage license they issue, none of their business...
the reality is that procreation is none of their business and if we want to be married to procreate then they have to back off...
I mean this is the logic that is central to every decision you cited... its right there in the very language you cited....
and stated expressly in Zablocki...
"The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection." IF our right to procreate means anything we have to be able to procreate in the relationship we wish... that's the law. that's why procreation distinguishes you..
its not bigotry, its understanding the basis of PRIVACY and how we do not have a right to privacy to GOVT RECOGNITION issued by the state...
you are messing up a whole line of privacy jurisprudence and skewing the very foundation of what our constitution does and whom it is meant to keep in check.
what the institution is, is not just the state licenses, it is what our constitution has said it is, a fundamental relationship because it is one in which we are able to procreate TOGETHER....
and yes, there are couples that have no interest in kids at all who marry, and in a sense they are free riders....and there are always free riders...but that some are is no reason to say everyone must get it...
especially when their addition negates a basic element of what a marriage is as is clearly demonstrated in that case law...
I mean, what if we decided that people who married for legal status, like immigration, was just fine since other people don't commit in their marriages...
see what i mean?
|Biggest Gay Lies||3 min||Good Reverend||2,015|
|Web filter lifts block on gay sitesWeb filter l...||4 min||Christaliban||39|
|Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de...||5 min||Frankie Rizzo||446|
|What counts as a 'real name' on Facebook?||13 min||Christaliban||12|
|US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r...||23 min||Frankie Rizzo||800|
|Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?||24 min||Stars and Stripes||1,416|
|Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate||25 min||JohnInToronto||32|
|Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?||34 min||Frankie Rizzo||966|
|Ginsburg: Watch 6th Circuit on gay marriage||21 hr||Fa-Foxy||64|
Find what you want!
Search Gay/Lesbian Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC
Enter your email to get updates on this discussion.