Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Judged:

1

1

1

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be under the impression that I need to be tolerant of your intolerance. You would be wrong. You're a snippy little bitch, and I have no reason to be cordial to people who are intentionally and repititously uncivil and offensive. Sorry dearie, but you had wanted tolerance you should have exhibited it.

Because I no longer feel the need to be civil to your incivility. Anything else I can clear up for you?

Aren't you supposed to be exhibiting the example of Christ??? Apprantly not.

I've argued the point on it's merits. The point is, there is no mandate for procreation in order to marry. So whether or not a couple is "able to" is irrelevant. If it isn't a mandate of the state, it can't be the reason for denial. Yet, it appears to be the only thing you can focus on. That makes you an idiot. But if you disagree, feel free to present the "merits" of why the inability to procreate is justification to deny marriage, but only descriminately to some people, not all. Cite current legislation that sets this prescidence of unequal applocation.

Who reached a limp-wristed, hissy-fit name-calling first bitch? If you can't take it, don't dish it out you sactimonious, lying cur.
TYpical hypocritical fundie. Thinks she can be intentionally aggitative, inciting, provoking, uncivil and disrespectful, and then want to pretend she's being persecuted when the same treatment is mirrored back!! Sorry Fool, go peddle your persecution somewhere else, no one is buying it here.

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:

Oh really...then why have ssm???

Judged:

2

2

2

RiversideRedneck wrote:

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>it is very natural if you are attracted to the same sex and always have been. your basic premise is faulty, that is why you reached a false conclusion.

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Now if I were to call you names, I'd be a bigot...but not you....oh no!!!!
I personally don't care what you 'tolerate' about me...I owe you no 'tolerance' either...I do NOT tolerate sin, I do NOT tolerate moral declination and I will NOT tolerate the destruction of America by liberal nobots that don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves..
<quoted text>
When were you ever 'civil'????
<quoted text>
I certainly am, and upholding the Principles of GOD is my first priority as a Christian...BTW JESUS did not stand for sin in any way shape or form....
<quoted text>
There is no 'mandate' for 'love' or 'sexual attraction' to marry either, so if procreation isn't important, neither is your 'love' or 'sexual attraction' to one another....
<quoted text>
I've neither called you a name nor had one hissy-fit over anything you've posted, though you do try desperately to bring it out of me...(I know that's the satan in you), therefore, you will never bother me that way....

RiversideRedneck wrote:

So... What's next? SSM? Then what? Pot leagalized? Then what? Illegals become legal? Then what?...
...
Where will it end? Do you understand or care about possible negative long term repercussions on society??

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:

So... What's next? SSM? Then what? Pot leagalized? Then what? Illegals become legal? Then what?...
...
Where will it end? Do you understand or care about possible negative long term repercussions on society??

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the US Constitution requires states to provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
This is a matter of civil law, and the rest of the crap that you wrote is utterly irrelevant to civil law.

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>it is very natural if you are attracted to the same sex and always have been. your basic premise is faulty, that is why you reached a false conclusion.

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>you are inventing scenarios that have already been proven to not come true.
Your argument failed before you thought it up...(or heard some other idiot say it and parroted it from them...)

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:

Well, then mission accomplished! We 'do' all have the same rights! Hurray!!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they don't...and they won't be happy until America is as broken down as any third world nation out there....

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the founders could see this kind of rationalization coming, where a bigoted majority would employ little more than rationalizations to negate the rights of minorities who were incapable of stopping the majority tyranny. This is why the notion of equality is at the heart of our founding documents (all men are created equal), and eventually was put into our federal constitution.
Constitutional right CAN be infringed by the state ONLY if doing so serves a legitimate state interest. There is no such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, nor does allowing them to do so adversely affect you or your rights.
Oh, and bestiality is illegal because an animal cannot grant legal consent, or enter into a legal contract.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Sin...(derisive snort) How quaint...

Judged:

2

2

2

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I invented nothing! I said:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So... What's next? SSM? Then what? Pot leagalized? Then what? Illegals become legal? Then what?...
...
Where will it end? Do you understand or care about possible negative long term repercussions on society??
All of which are either true or in the works.
Go away boy.

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, then mission accomplished! We 'do' all have the same rights! Hurray!!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:

No, it's not natural. Not at all.

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the founders could see this kind of rationalization coming, where a bigoted majority would employ little more than rationalizations to negate the rights of minorities who were incapable of stopping the majority tyranny. This is why the notion of equality is at the heart of our founding documents (all men are created equal), and eventually was put into our federal constitution.
Constitutional right CAN be infringed by the state ONLY if doing so serves a legitimate state interest. There is no such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, nor does allowing them to do so adversely affect you or your rights.
Oh, and bestiality is illegal because an animal cannot grant legal consent, or enter into a legal contract.