|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
WasteWater wrote: <quoted text>
To answer your question, love is not required for marriage but it is an important component of successful marriages.
The rest of your post is just more red herring drivel.
Dismissed. do you think "red herring" means "conflicts with my point of view"? so even though love is not required, it is nonetheless an important component..right? same with procreation. see how that works? same with commitment, isn't it? so you jumping up and down that procreation is not REQUIRED is really no point at all... as you admit, being required or not has no bearing on whether its an "important component" of marriage. and since procreation HAS been recognized as an important component by our laws and SCOTUS cases... you out of luck.
|
|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>
No you didn't.
"...if you don't want responses on your posts, don't post. You don't post anything of value anyway, no one would miss you..." do you understand the meaning of words? if you don't want responses, you should CHOOSE not to post... NOWHERE did I tell you to leave! I only state that you would not be missed... and i mean it. I am pretty well convinced you have reading difficulty...
|
|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>
There is NO WAY that idiot made it through law school. 200 posts on nothing but me being a lawyer... all of then based on not one shred of fact! you are useless...
|
|
truth
Spokane, WA
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
do you think "red herring" means "conflicts with my point of view"?
so even though love is not required, it is nonetheless an important component..right?
same with procreation.
see how that works?
same with commitment, isn't it?
so you jumping up and down that procreation is not REQUIRED is really no point at all...
as you admit, being required or not has no bearing on whether its an "important component" of marriage.
and since procreation HAS been recognized as an important component by our laws and SCOTUS cases...
you out of luck. your point has already been thouroghly refuted. Your just grasping at straws now.
|
|
truth
Spokane, WA
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
being gay is not a requirement to be LGBT, does that negate that LGBT is about gay issues?
its shows your logic is completely fault...
Please answer this:
Is LOVE REQUIRED of a MARRIAGE?
You don't need to love to marry, nor marry to love.
So a marriage has nothing to do with love, RIGHT?
Now COMMITMENT, is it REQUIRED?
You don't need to commit to marry, nor marry to commit...
in short, your full of it.
It would be interesting for you to address this.... you would be correct, legaly your don't need love, comitment, or procreation to marry. There are many straight couples that are like that, so your argument that gays can't marry for lake of one of those things is quite false.
|
|
Jane Dough
|
Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>Procreation ISN'T required, silly girl.
Sorry to disappoint, but I did very well on the SAT. How do you think I got that honors scholarship? Oh wait... maybe it was because I got a perfect score on the ACT.
I'm betting you scored a 120 on the LSAT. doesn't need to be required dude. did you FAIL the SAT? you dolt. You accused me of failing! now you are bragging about your ACT & SAT scores? well I was voted most likeable in nursery school! who the f cares? Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>
One last time numbnuts, LGBT by definition means OTHER THAN heterosexual. then why isn't homosexual REQUIRED? why are people who like the opposite sex included (Transgenders as well as bisexuals)? it must be just a ruse, its really your bigotry that you want to deny straights since some straights are alreayd LGBT. You deny me LGBT status based on nothing but my sexual orientation...separate is inherently unequal you bigot! in the end, the first circuit said exactly what I said it would, and you have shown you cannot comprehend that decisions...so reality is all that matters...
|
|
Jane Dough
|
truth wrote: <quoted text>
your point has already been thouroghly refuted. Your just grasping at straws now. your fine with saying procreation is not required so its not relevant... but love is not required but its an "important component" and that somehow refutes me? do you even understand what evenly applied logic is?
|
|
Jane Dough
|
and here comes Mona and curiously, the judge it's icons start up again simultaneously ..what a bold faced liar Mona Lott is...
|
|
|
|
truth
Spokane, WA
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
your fine with saying procreation is not required so its not relevant...
but love is not required but its an "important component" and that somehow refutes me?
do you even understand what evenly applied logic is? you obviously have no idea what logic is, or even what your talking about. you seem to be one of the most unintelligent people i have ever met, perhaps your mentally ill or disabled
|
|
“laugh until your belly hurts”
Since: Dec 06
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
2 points.
1. your side is unable to apply their fake logic evenly.
2. "procreation is not REQUIRED" is a very silly argument.
and what do you do for a living?
oh right, it DOESN'T MATTER! 1. it's not fake 2. not only is procreation not required, but it's extremely ill advised. the world population is now over 7 billion with 200,000 more being born every day. don't you think that's quite enough? 3.i've recently retired from the full time pastorate in a christian church. i'm still teaching english, and working as the head cook at the church + helping out whenever necessary around the church's farm, and their new full service hospital. i'm also the stay at home dad of two young children. why do you ask?
|
|
Mona Lott
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
do you understand the meaning of words?
if you don't want responses, you should CHOOSE not to post...
NOWHERE did I tell you to leave!
I only state that you would not be missed...
and i mean it.
I am pretty well convinced you have reading difficulty... Exactly how do you miss someone if they aren't gone?
|
|
Mona Lott
|
Jane Dough wrote: and here comes Mona and curiously, the judge it's icons start up again simultaneously
..what a bold faced liar Mona Lott is... Frog with no legs can't hear.
|
|
Mona Lott
Hoboken, NJ
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
doesn't need to be required dude.
did you FAIL the SAT?
you dolt. You accused me of failing!
now you are bragging about your ACT & SAT scores?
well I was voted most likeable in nursery school!
who the f cares?
<quoted text>
then why isn't homosexual REQUIRED?
why are people who like the opposite sex included (Transgenders as well as bisexuals)?
it must be just a ruse, its really your bigotry that you want to deny straights since some straights are alreayd LGBT.
You deny me LGBT status based on nothing but my sexual orientation...separate is inherently unequal you bigot!
in the end, the first circuit said exactly what I said it would, and you have shown you cannot comprehend that decisions...so reality is all that matters... It cracks me up when you speak of reality, as if you have ANY connection with it. "seperate is inherently unequal," eh? You don't believe that for one second. You have repeated insisted that CUs should be acceptable to gays. "You deny me LGBT status based on nothing but my sexual orientation..." No shit, sherlock. Heterosexual is NOT part of LGBT. LGBT by definition means OTHER THAN heterosexual.
|
|
truth
Spokane, WA
|
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
200 posts on nothing but me being a lawyer...
all of then based on not one shred of fact!
you are useless... do you know that you just admitted your a liar. so you breaking the commandments of god. guess your just as bad as those icky LBGT. lol.
|
|
Mona Lott
Hoboken, NJ
|
Gee, every time Jane Dough posts, a cloud passes overhead. Jane Dough MUST be causing clouds to pass overhead.
|
|
truth
|
Mona Lott wrote: Gee, every time Jane Dough posts, a cloud passes overhead. Jane Dough MUST be causing clouds to pass overhead. well she does think she is god, or at least gods voice. lol, she's quite a fake.
|
|
Since: Aug 11
|
Please wait...
Jane Dough wrote: <quoted text>
do you think "red herring" means "conflicts with my point of view"?
so even though love is not required, it is nonetheless an important component..right?
same with procreation.
see how that works?
same with commitment, isn't it?
so you jumping up and down that procreation is not REQUIRED is really no point at all...
as you admit, being required or not has no bearing on whether its an "important component" of marriage.
and since procreation HAS been recognized as an important component by our laws and SCOTUS cases...
you out of luck. FYI Red herrings are arguments which have no connection to what is being discussed and are introduced to divert attention away from what is pertinent. Procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage. For example, many people who cannot procreate get married or are already married. Marriage is not a legal requirement of procreation either. For example, there is no marriage required for one to use the services of a fertility clinic. There is no law against unmarried people having sex which may result in procreation. Do you have a point here?
|
|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
truth wrote: <quoted text>
you obviously have no idea what logic is, or even what your talking about. funny how I use lots of cut and pastes from recent court decisions...
|
|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>
No shit, sherlock. Heterosexual is NOT part of LGBT. LGBT by definition means OTHER THAN heterosexual. except for the heterosexuals that are LGBT... transgenders who like the oposite sex, some bi's like the opposite sex, so hetero's ARE LGBT, so being gay is not REQUIRED... you must be just saying LGBT is just about gays out of your hate for straights... why do you want us in the back of the bus? why do you hate us so much? "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
|
|
Jane Dough
Middlebury, VT
|
Mona Lott wrote: <quoted text>
"seperate is inherently unequal," eh? You don't believe that for one second. You have repeated insisted that CUs should be acceptable to gays. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your position that separate is inherently unequal as you separate yourselves into a different status called LGBT.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Libra
