Romney Speaks of Values, Gay Marriage at Christian College

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You better get to work then- smoking laws, drinking laws, polygamy laws....
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS declared marriage a "right" when it is "essential to our existence and survival", not simply a blanket statement that marriage is a "right" as you claim. This statement clearly links the courts opinion that marriage is related to procreation, it is further shown by the fact that this statement came from Skinner v Oklahoma, a case dealing with castration.
<quoted text>
All the rest of this is you simply spinning your wheels with the same nonsense. There is no point in addressing this again.

No it dealt with mandatory sterilization. The passage in question speaks directly to the issue of fundamental rights. Anything else is ancillary.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You better get to work then- smoking laws, drinking laws, polygamy laws....
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS declared marriage a "right" when it is "essential to our existence and survival", not simply a blanket statement that marriage is a "right" as you claim. This statement clearly links the courts opinion that marriage is related to procreation, it is further shown by the fact that this statement came from Skinner v Oklahoma, a case dealing with castration.
<quoted text>
All the rest of this is you simply spinning your wheels with the same nonsense. There is no point in addressing this again.

<The SCOTUS declared marriage a "right" when it is "essential to our existence and survival", not simply a blanket statement that marriage is a "right" as you claim. This statement clearly links the courts opinion that marriage is related to procreation, it is further shown by the fact that this statement came from Skinner v Oklahoma, a case dealing with castration.>

They declared it a right which in that case happened to include procreation. The fundamental right being part of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In no way does it declare procreation as a mandatory marriage practice. Procreation although central to Skinner, is ancillary to the practice of marriage.

Pappa wrote:

<quoted text>
I will no longer provide you with fodder for your mental defect.

Well, how about me, I have a mental defect that badly needs fodder, plus, grain, and, while you are at it, some fresh, clean water, not this Romney-piss they serve down here in Mormon hell... yes, I live in Mormon hell, where the real god, the God of the Judeo-Christians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob sends Mormons and Moslems, who have turned their back on the true God. Did you know that Mormons actually believe that two tribes of Jews wandered over to America after leaving Egypt and became to ancestors of the American Indians? The same redskins that John Wayne battled for so many years are actually a bunch of Jews...ok, we want one of these Mormons who believe this crap to be our leader? Not me, give me a Judeo-Christian any time, Mister! Plus, non-Mormons won't be allowed at the inauguration, because it will take place at the Mormon tabernacle

Kreator from Kolob wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, how about me, I have a mental defect that badly needs fodder, plus, grain, and, while you are at it, some fresh, clean water, not this Romney-piss they serve down here in Mormon hell... yes, I live in Mormon hell, where the real god, the God of the Judeo-Christians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob sends Mormons and Moslems, who have turned their back on the true God. Did you know that Mormons actually believe that two tribes of Jews wandered over to America after leaving Egypt and became to ancestors of the American Indians? The same redskins that John Wayne battled for so many years are actually a bunch of Jews...ok, we want one of these Mormons who believe this crap to be our leader? Not me, give me a Judeo-Christian any time, Mister! Plus, non-Mormons won't be allowed at the inauguration, because it will take place at the Mormon tabernacle

That's it in the Mormon Nutshell isn't it?

The truth is nobody, especially God, ever said shit. The only only thing anybody has is what other people beat into them from birth. You don't find any kind of truth from others, only from within.

US Citizen 07 wrote:

The truth is nobody, especially God, ever said shit.

I feel sorry for you that you do not know the grace and love of our savior, the dear Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of our Lord God, whose wonderful grace radiates throughout heaven and earth...I can only hope that God throws you face first into a vat of pig shit and dog vomit, from which you will be forced to eat your way out, you lousy scum sucking atheistic, God-mocking piece of manure, when I told God about you, He told me he hates your lousy guts; GOd told me he ordered your mother to abort you, but she was a sinner, and refused to listen to him.

It is disturbing when so called christians use such foul language and spew hatred and aggression. You are not standing up for God, just hiding behind Him. Righteous anger is fine and you can back up your beliefs at the voting booth but don't run your mouth like an unbeliever and claim to be christian.

Pappa wrote:

<quoted text>
Who did Powell endorse last election?

Even Republicons can barely mouth the words to endorse Mutt Romputz.

Bumbya Bush did it while the elevator doors were closing. He did manage to get grampy McCain on the same stage: creepy and creaky.

Kreator from Kolob wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, how about me, I have a mental defect that badly needs fodder, plus, grain, and, while you are at it, some fresh, clean water, not this Romney-piss they serve down here in Mormon hell... yes, I live in Mormon hell, where the real god, the God of the Judeo-Christians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob sends Mormons and Moslems, who have turned their back on the true God. Did you know that Mormons actually believe that two tribes of Jews wandered over to America after leaving Egypt and became to ancestors of the American Indians? The same redskins that John Wayne battled for so many years are actually a bunch of Jews...ok, we want one of these Mormons who believe this crap to be our leader? Not me, give me a Judeo-Christian any time, Mister! Plus, non-Mormons won't be allowed at the inauguration, because it will take place at the Mormon tabernacle

How will that work exactly? Will all SS agents have to be Mormons in good standing so they can follow Mutt Romputz into a temple?

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
Even Republicons can barely mouth the words to endorse Mutt Romputz.
Bumbya Bush did it while the elevator doors were closing. He did manage to get grampy McCain on the same stage: creepy and creaky.

You didn't answer the question. Who did Powell endorse last election? That Powell endorses Romney this election says alot about the current resident of the White House.

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
How will that work exactly? Will all SS agents have to be Mormons in good standing so they can follow Mutt Romputz into a temple?

Check it out, two bigots feeding off of each other. You and Kolob should get a room.

akpilot wrote:

You better get to work then- smoking laws, drinking laws, polygamy laws....

You had better get to work on an argument that is actually on topic. Do you find it the least bit odd that you have to make a completely tangential argument? The laws you cite each serve legitimate state interests. Can you indicate any such legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? You certainly have not thus far.

akpilot wrote:

The SCOTUS declared marriage a "right" when it is "essential to our existence and survival", not simply a blanket statement that marriage is a "right" as you claim.

That is a lovely rationalization, but it is rent asunder the second the state allows an infertile heterosexual couple to legally marry. Doing so inherently proves that procreation is not a legitimate interest of the state relative to the legal protections of marriage. It is foolish to even think that there is a procreative requirement of marriage that is solely applicable to homosexuals exclusively to exclude them from equal protection of the laws.

akpilot wrote:

This statement clearly links the courts opinion that marriage is related to procreation, it is further shown by the fact that this statement came from Skinner v Oklahoma, a case dealing with castration.

It is easily dispatched by the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry. This isn't even a particularly strong rationalization.

akpilot wrote:

All the rest of this is you simply spinning your wheels with the same nonsense. There is no point in addressing this again.

Funny, you are the one making irrelevant arguments that don't pass even a rational basis test.

Pappa wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question. Who did Powell endorse last election? That Powell endorses Romney this election says alot about the current resident of the White House.

Powell endorsed President Obama in the last election and stated last week that he is not endorsing anyone at this time.

Why would he? Republicans are still kicking him in the gut for not towing the party line 4 years ago. He's a smart man and like most republicans, he just can't bring himself to endorse Romney and won't until he absolutely has to.

Too funny.

That is a lovely rationalization, but it is rent asunder the second the state allows an infertile heterosexual couple to legally marry. Doing so inherently proves that procreation is not a legitimate interest of the state relative to the legal protections of marriage. It is foolish to even think that there is a procreative requirement of marriage that is solely applicable to homosexuals exclusively to exclude them from equal protection of the laws.
The point is, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. In fact, after a couple has been married and the woman goes through menopause, that couple should be divorced as a matter of automatic law, so that the husband can go marry a nice young woman who can procreate and give him lots of children, in addition to whatever sexual favors he requires. It works the other way, too, if a husband becomes impotent or infertile, his wife gets to divorce him and get a young stud who can knock her up. This is actually the law in Connecticut, it is just not enforced anymore because of all the whiney-ass liberals

MorMan AnswerMan Here wrote:

That is a lovely rationalization, but it is rent asunder the second the state allows an infertile heterosexual couple to legally marry. Doing so inherently proves that procreation is not a legitimate interest of the state relative to the legal protections of marriage. It is foolish to even think that there is a procreative requirement of marriage that is solely applicable to homosexuals exclusively to exclude them from equal protection of the laws.
The point is, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. In fact, after a couple has been married and the woman goes through menopause, that couple should be divorced as a matter of automatic law, so that the husband can go marry a nice young woman who can procreate and give him lots of children, in addition to whatever sexual favors he requires. It works the other way, too, if a husband becomes impotent or infertile, his wife gets to divorce him and get a young stud who can knock her up. This is actually the law in Connecticut, it is just not enforced anymore because of all the whiney-ass liberals

I couldn't say it any better myself.

Kudos....

Of course you got lost with your whiny political stuff about liberals. The fact is the marriage is a civil issue which protects certain rights of a married couple. There is no reason to discriminate those rights on the basis of procreation.

End of story.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
No it dealt with mandatory sterilization. The passage in question speaks directly to the issue of fundamental rights. Anything else is ancillary.

What???? You love to insert nonsense wherever you can don't you???? The Supreme Court proclaimed 'marriage' is a basic civil right fundamental to our very existence...that means making babies together. No if ands or buts....

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What???? You love to insert nonsense wherever you can don't you???? The Supreme Court proclaimed 'marriage' is a basic civil right fundamental to our very existence...that means making babies together. No if ands or buts....

So you are calling Skinner v. Oklahoma nonsense.

That's very interesting.

Do you call the Bible nonsense also?

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What???? You love to insert nonsense wherever you can don't you???? The Supreme Court proclaimed 'marriage' is a basic civil right fundamental to our very existence...that means making babies together. No if ands or buts....

As part of Skinner. You can't deny that.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
No it dealt with mandatory sterilization. The passage in question speaks directly to the issue of fundamental rights. Anything else is ancillary.

Were you trying to make a point? Might want to try a bit harder.