Roman Emperor Nero married a man or two. Off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Printable View
Roman Emperor Nero married a man or two. Off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...e#Gay_marriage
The link shows that it was happening, though not to the same cheers as the slaughter of Christens in the arena.
[rofl2]Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpstart
Can't we all just get along? Where are the ponies?
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2...2u39o1_500.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CO Hugh
It's been that for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Did you wear a hat?Quote:
Originally Posted by tmleadr03
Not often. Usually it is off the top of my head...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I find this accusation amazingly funny, cause you know, somehow by not thinking all black people should be locked in the bonds of slavery still, that makes me a black person right???Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
As in using your logic that a person that thinks gay people should not be denied something by the government that the government has no charter in the constitution to control to begin with, that would make that person gay.
Cause that's an amazingly well thought out and expressed line of logic right there. Typical antic of those that can't back up their line of reasoning with logic and fact, they resort to name calling. Just like the hardcore lefty's do on a daily basis.
So what exactly are gay people being denied?Quote:
Originally Posted by XC700116
Power of attorneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Equal insurance protection
Equal legal protection
Medical visitation rights
Marriage, Where have you been through this whole conversation??Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Point being that the government has NO CHARTER in the constitution to govern it, and thereby shouldn't be to begin with weather it be straight, gay, multiple, or whatever.
I,m right here. Gays can marry. They have every right, like every other person to get married. They are not being denied anything else that anyone else, is not also being denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by XC700116
You may not know this, but gays legally CANNOT marry in this state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Yes they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
evidence pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Really? Can't figure it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
you're the one with the claim...the least you can do is back it upQuote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Still can't figure it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Here you go Jumpstart. proof you are absolutely dead wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogni...ns_in_Colorado
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se..._United_States
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_same-se...al_in_Colorado
oh, and:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Colorado+Same+Sex+marriage+law
Jumpstart is making the point that gays can marry, just not same sex partners. Even though Jumpstart is straight, he has no more right to marry another man than a gay man has. Therefore, gays have the same rights as he does considering marriage. He is correct on that point.
A gay woman can certainly marry Jumpstart if she wants.
Wow, you really did your homework on gay marriage. The sexual orientation of legal adults is not a barrier to getting married in any state in the union.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
No, she couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeusExMachina
I would be denied my right to the pursuit of happiness by being denied the "right" to marrying more than one women.
No, think dolly... and we really aren't that different from a biological standpoint, things only change significantly north of the midbrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
I'm sorry, are labs male? Can females run a lab? I don't think that we make female biologists illegal, maybe I should check that again though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
I was not alluding to female asexual reproduction, if things reproduce asexually there isn't a true male or female is there?
Oh and FYI lab is short for laboratory, not "some place where they splice cells."
maybe so, but that isn't the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
gay and same-sex marriage is synonymous when it comes to gay marriage.
So why do you have a problem with two men or two women marrying each other? Will it impact your life? Will it make you feel like your marriage (if you are married or when/if you get married) is less meaningful because someone or something you don't agree with has the same right? Will it take away from the pool of single women or men you seek?
No they can't in the legal sense in which allows for joint tax returns, shared health insurance benefits, and so on WITH THE PARTNER OF THEIR CHOICE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Nope. Just "Tolerant Colorado AR-15 Shooters".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Seriously, dude? THAT'S your argument? That gay men have as much right to marry women as heterosexual men do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Jumpstart is a damn good troll, I'll give him that. He's kept us going for two days, now.
Thank you for clearing that up... I was confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Indeed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
So jumpstart is saying that gays can marry, just not someone of the same sex...
http://www.demotivationalposters.org...1259858393.jpg
He is making the point that gays currently have equal rights concerning marriage as everyone else, and he is correct.
Yes, but DUH! Of course a gay man can get married, that's not what's at issue, the issue is that said gay man cannot marry his fellow man. Currently, under state law, the state of Colorado does not recognize two dudes (or two chicks) as a legal married couple, thus they don't have the "legal" rights (as listed before) that "normal" married couples enjoy... so saying that gay people can get married is just stupid, sure they can, just not to who they want. [Bang]Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I personally think I should give anyone I choose this right without a marriage of any kind. Never understood why people couldn't. To that matter why the heck does it matter to anyone who gets married, it shouldn't make a difference in taxes etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
It's just the man trying to keep us down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobat555
Of course the argument is only to trip people up on the semantics of saying they are arguing for equal rights, because technically they already have equal rights. It is easily defeated.
Men marry men? Women marrying women? Absurd.
"Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!" -Sorry your comment reminded me of Ghostbusters, the best Bill Murray lines come from that movie. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpstart
Time for a history lesson, the real issue here is not whether marriage can be devolved, but rather the federal government can force that policy on the states, which is nationalism not federalism.
National review is a good place to search and read articles on both sides, that are well thought out, not the denver post. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rriage-editors
The issue for "freedom" or a "right" is that under the Constitution and Originalism, the analysis is how was that right understood by founding fathers at the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Thus, if marriage was understood to be same sex then, it may be today. Contrary to progressive assertions the racial cases, such as Dred Scott are not examples of originalism but judicial activism. The other critical calculation here is whether Obama and federal judges can find a federal right to such a thing. Same sex marriage has failed everywhere it has been on the ballot.
Also the Constitution and its progeny were designed to prevent the government from infringing on our inalianeble rights: the right to bear arms is inalienable to everyone by their being. So if this right was being exercised before why do there need to be laws to create the "right"? Rights are those things you are born with such as liberty and freedom; not housing and a job that the government will give you.
Mr. Gutsy move failed to metamorphize before the North Carolina vote. States can and will decide whether to modify the definition of marriage, but it should be based on elected officials doing it or the voters, not judges.
As has been stated earlier, these are the same people that want your guns. It is really an issue between a national government finding rights and federalism. The regime is distracting everyone from the economy and real issue, like gun control and fast and furious to entice the masses with shiny objects and rhetoric that has nothing to do with Presidential duties, because he thinks you are all ignorant stupid bitter clingers. He needs more marriages/relationships to result in no children because that is the only way to get the unemployment rate down.
funk yeaQuote:
Originally Posted by UncleDave